Chamandy V. He et al. - Page 2




                  Interference No.  105,534                                                                                                               
                  Chamandy v. He                                                                                                                          
            1              The real party in interest of the junior party’s involved patents and the senior party’s                                       
            2     involved application is now the same, as is indicated by a statement filed by the junior party on                                       
            3     June 25, 2007, and a statement filed by the senior party on August 7, 2007.  The common real                                            
            4     party in interest, Avery Dennison, Corp. has elected junior party Chamandy as the party entitled                                        
            5     to priority, and the senior party has requested entry of adverse judgment.  (Paper 29).                                                 
            6              The request is granted.  It is                                                                                                 
            7              ORDERED that judgment on priority as to the subject matter of Count 1 is herein                                                
            8     entered against senior party XIAO-MING HE, LIVIU DINESCU, KUOLIH TSAI, DONG-TSAI                                                        
            9     HSEIH, LI SHU, YI-HUNG CHIAO, ALAN MORGENTHAU, and RAMIN HEYDARPOUR;                                                                    
          10               FURTHER ORDERED that senior party XIAO-MING HE, LIVIU DINESCU,                                                                 
          11      KUOLIH TSAI, DONG-TSAI HSEIH, LI SHU, YI-HUNG CHIAO, ALAN MORGENTHAU,                                                                   
          12      and RAMIN HEYDARPOUR is not entitled to a patent containing its application claims 89-102                                               
          13      which correspond to Count 1;                                                                                                            
          14               FURTHER ORDERED that if there is a settlement agreement, the parties should note                                               
          15      the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 135(c) and Bd. Rule 205; and                                                                            
          16               FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this judgment be placed in the respective                                                       
          17      involved application or patent of the parties.                                                                                          









                                                                            2                                                                             



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013