Inc. (Stardent) and Jeffrey A. Sibner.
37. The agreement is apparently not an assignment of any inventions, but rather is an
agreement between Stardent and Sibner regarding the confidentiality of proprietary information
exchanged between the two parties.
38. Part of the “exhibit A” is an e-mail from Jeffrey A. Sibner to Ms. Orzechowski
stating that the “confidentiality agreement” was signed by Sandra Gilbert and himself on 11 July
1996.
C. Discussion
In response to the show cause order, Sibner must show good cause why judgment should
not be entered against it. Here, Sibner has failed to show good cause why judgment should not
be entered against it. Accordingly, judgment against the junior party Sibner is appropriate.
In response to the show cause order, Sibner argues that, at the time of the invention,
Sandra Gilbert was under an obligation to assign the subject matter involved in the interference
to Sibner. Sibner proposes to cancel those Gilbert claims that are identical to, or are anticipated
by the Sibner involved claims, leaving Gilbert claims 5-11 and 18-22, claims that were originally
designated as corresponding to the count. Although not clearly articulated, we understand
Sibner to submit that the remaining Gilbert claims would not be prior art to Sibner or vice versa,
since Gilbert was allegedly under an obligation to assign the subject matter, covered by those
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007