Interference No. 104,312
Sauer Inc. v. Kanzaki Kokyukoki Mfg. Co., Ltd.
For the foregoing reasons, Sauer has not satisfied its burden of proof in demonstrating
priority of invention over Kanzaki.
We note that Kanzaki has argued that Sauer had derived the invention of the count from
Kanzaki. That issue is moot in light of Sauer's failure to demonstrate reasonable diligence in
reducing the invention to practice, even assuming that Sauer had a prior conception.
Judemen
It is
ORDERED that judgment as to the subject matter of the count is herein entered against
junior party JOSEPH E. LOUIS and ALAN W. JOHNSON;
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JOSEPH E. LOUIS and ALAN W. JOHNSON
is not entitled to its involved patent claim I which corresponds to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that senior party HIDEAKI OKADA is not entitled to claim 7
of its involved application, which corresponds to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, attention of the parties is
directed to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and 37 CFR § 1.661; and
FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper will be entered in each party's
involved application or patent.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007