Interference 103,781
This is a contingent Motion, that should only be
considered if the APJ believes that, notwithstanding
Monsanto’s election of Fischhoff et al. over Barton et al.,
Barton et al., is still available to the parties as
102(g)/103 prior art.
June 19, 1997 - The Board entered the following judgment
(Paper No. 53):
Whereas Monsanto, the common assignee of the
Barton et al. and Fischhoff et al. applications has
named the party Fischhoff et al. as the prior inventor
of count 1, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.602(a) and 1.610(e)
judgment is hereby entered against Barton et al.
as to the subject matter of count 1. Accordingly,
Kenneth A. Barton and Michael J. Miller are not
entitled to a patent containing Claims 1-4, 7, and
15-22 corresponding to count 1. The interference
will continue as Fischhoff et al. v. Adang et al.
June 27, 1997 - Barton filed notice under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141
and 142 of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit from the judgment of the Board entered June 17, 1997
(Paper No. 55).
February 5, 1998 - The U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware entered a judgment (Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v.
Monsanto Co., No. 96-505 (D. Del. Feb. 5, 1998)) in an action
brought by Mycogen Plant Science, Inc., and Agrigenetics Inc.
against Monsanto Co., DeKalb Genetics Corp., and Delta and Pine
Land Co. for infringement of two Mycogen patents (Adang et al.,
U.S. Patent 5,567,862, entitled “Synthetic Insecticidal Crystal
Protein Gene,” issued October 22, 1996, from U.S. Application
08/369,839, filed January 6, 1995; and Adang et al., U.S. Patent
-162-
Page: Previous 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007