complete the Junior party’s inventorship motion. The Junior party has no option
available to it other then [sic, than] to stand by and watch as its patent rights are
usurped. “ As Birmingham is a pro se party, a conference call was initiated by Judge
Moore to ensure that Birmingham intended to abandon the contest.
A telephone conference call was held on January 3, 2005 at approximately
10:00 a.m., involving, as principal participants:
1. Michael Birmingham, Junior Party,
2. Arlen Olsen, counsel for Soron, and
3. James T. Moore, Administrative Patent Judge.
In the conference call, Birmingham confimed that Paper 29 was to be construed
as a request for adverse judgment.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the Request for Adverse Judgment, it is
hereby:
ORDERED that judgment on inventorship as to Count 1 (Paper 1, page 6) is
awarded against Junior Party Michael Birmingham.
FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Michael Birmingham is not entitled to a
patent containing claim 1 (corresponding to Count 1) of patent 6,689,219.
FURTHER ORDERED that judgment on inventorship as to Count 2 (Paper 1,
page 6) is awarded against Junior Party Michael Birmingham.
FURTHER ORDERED that Junior Party Michael Birmingham is not entitled to a
patent containing claim 2 (corresponding to Count 2) of patent 6,689,219.
−2−
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007