1 priority in addition to its accorded benefit unless it files a priority statement. Zia cannot
2 prevail on the current record.
3 During the conference call, Zia confirmed that it did not file a priority statement
4 intentionally, would not be filing any motions, would not be defending this interference,
5 and consented to the entry of an adverse judgment against it. We construe these
6 statements as a Request for Adverse Judgment. Bd. R. 127(b)(4).
7 Upon consideration of the Request for Adverse Judgment, it is hereby:
8 ORDERED that judgment on priority as to Count 1 (Paper 1, page 5) is awarded
9 against Junior party Hossein Zia, Thomas E. Needham, and Muhammad Quadir.
10 FURTHER ORDERED that Junior party Hossein Zia, Thomas E. Needham, and
11 Muhammad Quadir is not entitled to a patent containing claims 1-4 (corresponding to
12 Count 1) of patent 6,090,368.
13 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this paper shall be made of record in files
14 of application 09/903,665 and patent 6,090,368.
15 FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall direct attention to 35 U.S.C. § 135(c)
16 and 37 CFR § 41.205(a) regarding the filing of settlement agreements.
17
18 /Richard E. Schafer/ )
19 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
20 )
21 )
22 /Michael P. Tierney/ ) BOARD OF PATENT
23 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE ) APPEALS AND
24 ) INTERFERENCES
25 )
26 /James T. Moore/ )
27 ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGE )
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007