14 and 24 might be cancelled if Livak lost on the issue of
priority. 35 U.S.C. § 135(a).
7. Accordingly, Livak had a reason to seek to avoid
an interference with Han.
8. In an attempt to avoid the interference, Livak
filed Livak Preliminary Motion 2 (Paper 29) seeking entry of
a judgment that there is no "interference-in-fact" between
(1) Han claims 102-108 and (2) Livak claims 1, 3, 14 or 24.
9. Livak Preliminary Motion 1 further sought entry of
a judgment that involved Han claims 102-108 are unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 135(b) (Paper 28). Livak bottomed Livak
Preliminary Motion 1 on the proposition that Han did not timely
present a claim to the same or substantially the same invention
as the invention defined by the involved Livak patent claims.
Han opposed (Paper 34) and Livak filed a reply (Paper 45).
10. Sometime after preliminary motions had been filed,
Livak found it convenient to file Livak Miscellaneous Motion 1
seeking to "strike" a preliminary statement filed by Han "or
otherwise confine" Han to its effective filing date" (Paper 55,
page 1).
11. In due course, a Trial Section 3-judge motions
panel considered Livak Preliminary Motion 2.
12. The 3-judge motions panel, agreeing with Livak,
granted Livak Preliminary Motion 2 holding that indeed there is
no "interference-in-fact" between (1) Han claims 102-108 and
(2) Livak claims 1, 3, 14 and 24 (Paper 60, page 26). Since no
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007