In Lifson’s request for adverse judgment, Lifson states that it requests entry of adverse
judgment with respect to the count and thus with respect to Lifson’s claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 14, 15,
17-19, 22, 24, 25 and 29-37 (Paper 48). The list of claims is not an accurate list of those Lifson
claims that are designated as corresponding to the count (Paper 1 at 4). To the extent that Lifson
is attempting to limit the effects of the requested adverse judgment, such attempts have been
accorded no weight and will be accorded no weight in future prosecution by Lifson before the
USPTO. The estoppel effects of Bd.R. 127(a) apply in full force, no matter how Lifson has
attempted to limit its concession of priority. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Cameron, 61 USPQ 1863
(Bd.Pat.App. & Int. 2001). The decision to enter judgment against Lifson is based solely upon
Lifson’s request for adverse judgment.
Should either party believe that Lifson’s request for adverse judgment has been
“misapprehended,” the party may file a request for rehearing under Bd.R. 127(d).
Upon consideration of the record, it is
ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1 at 4) is awarded
against junior party JEAN-LUC CAILLAT.
FURTHER ORDERED that junior party JEAN-LUC CAILLAT is not entitled to
a patent containing claims 1-6, 11, 14-17 and 21-27 (corresponding to Count 1) of U.S. patent
6,206,652.
FURTHER ORDERED judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1 and 4) is
awarded against senior party ALEXANDER LIFSON.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007