Patent Interference 105,250 Paper 41
Dow Chemical Co. v. Basell Polyolefine GmbH Page 2
Pursuant to the “DECISION S PRIORITY S BD.R. 125(a)” issued herewith, it is hereby
ORDERED that judgment on the issue of priority is entered in favor of the Senior
Party and against the Junior Party as to Count 1, the sole count, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the Junior party is not entitled to a patent containing
claims 1 through 3 of U.S. Patent 5,527,929, which are designated as corresponding to the count;
and it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall direct attention to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c)
and 37 CFR § 41.205(a) regarding the filing of settlement agreements.
)
/ss/ Adriene Lepiane Hanlon )
ADRIENE LEPIANE HANLON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
/ss/ Richard Torczon ) APPEALS AND
RICHARD TORCZON ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
/ss/ James T. Moore )
JAMES T. MOORE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ALH/alh
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007