Interference No. 104,679
Stuart v. Sauvageot
JUDGMENT
On August 23, 2002, an order to show cause was issued against senior party Sauvageot,
noting that the senior party no longer has standing to remain in this interference and setting a 10
day period for Sauvageot to show cause why judgment should not be entered against it with
respect to all of its claims corresponding to the count. (Paper No. 66) As of September 11, 2002,
Party Sauvageot filed no such response, Accordingly, entry of adversejudgment is now
appropriate. It is
ORDERED that judgment is herein entered against claims 39-44 of senior party
Sauvageot and therefore ANNE SAUVAGEOT, DENIS ROUFFET, DIDIER
CASASOPRANA, CYRIL MICHEL and LAURENT COMBAREL are not entitled to their
application claims 39-44 corresponding to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that on this record, junior party Stuart is entitled to its patent
claims 1-20 which correspond to the count;
FURTHER ORDERED that any agreement or understanding between parties to this
interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or
in contemplation of the termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof
filed in the United States Patent and Trademark office before termination of the interference as
between the parties to the agreement or understanding. 35 U.S.C. § 135(c); 37 C.F.R. § 1,661;
and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007