Interference No. 103,675
justice, take up these very same issues under our discretionary
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 1.655(c). We decline to take up these
issues because we find they have been raised belatedly without
adequate reason for not raising them at the appropriate time or when
the issues were first discovered by Bouchard et al. Manifestly, it
would not be in the interest of justice to permit one party to
circumvent the orderly procedures established for conducting an
interference at the expense of their opponent. Moreover, conclusory
statements as found in Bouchard et al.'s statement of "facts" as set
forth in paragraphs 52 and 53 are inadequate to establish that
Bouchard et al. are entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly,
Bouchard et al.'s request is DENIED.
Bouchard et al.'s request that we overturn the APJ's
decision denying their motions to reopen testimony is DENIED. Bouchard
et al. argue that the APJ's denial of their request was unreasonable
because: (1) the APJ rendered her opinion before Bouchard et al. were
able to file their reply to Chen et al.'s opposition to the request;
(2) the APJ granted the request but then reversed her decision and
denied the request; and, (3) the APJ's decision denying the motion to
reopen was colored by her unreasonable denial of Bouchard et al.'s
discovery requests and her failure to decide Bouchard et al.'s
requests for reconsideration. For reasons which follow, we find
47
Page: Previous 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007