Can a party suggest an interference that results in a no interference-in-fact judgment?
Yes, a party can suggest an interference that ultimately results in a judgment of no interference-in-fact. The MPEP 2308.03(b) addresses this scenario: “Neither party has lost the interference for the purpose of estoppel consistent with 37 CFR 41.127(a)(1), even if one of the parties suggested the interference.” This statement implies that it’s possible for a…
Read MoreWhat happens if the Board determines there is no interference-in-fact?
If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) determines that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject matter of the count, this decision is final and cannot be reopened in further examination. The MPEP 2308.03(c) clearly states: “If the Board held that there is no interference-in-fact between the parties for the subject…
Read MoreWhat is the relationship between a judgment of no interference-in-fact and patent priority?
A judgment of no interference-in-fact is directly related to patent priority issues. As stated in MPEP 2308.03(b): “A judgment of no interference-in-fact means that no interference is needed to resolve priority between the parties.” This judgment indicates that there is no conflict in priority between the parties’ claims that requires resolution through an interference proceeding.…
Read MoreWhat does a judgment of “no interference-in-fact” mean in patent law?
A judgment of “no interference-in-fact” in patent law means that no interference proceeding is necessary to resolve priority between the parties. As stated in MPEP 2308.03(b): “A judgment of no interference-in-fact means that no interference is needed to resolve priority between the parties.” This judgment indicates that the claims of the parties do not overlap…
Read MoreDoes a judgment of no interference-in-fact result in either party losing the interference?
No, a judgment of no interference-in-fact does not result in either party losing the interference. The MPEP 2308.03(b) clearly states: “Neither party has lost the interference for the purpose of estoppel consistent with 37 CFR 41.127(a)(1), even if one of the parties suggested the interference.” This means that neither party is considered to have lost…
Read MoreWhat are the consequences of a judgment of no interference-in-fact for future interferences?
A judgment of no interference-in-fact has significant consequences for future interferences between the same parties. According to MPEP 2308.03(b): “A judgment of no interference-in-fact bars any further interference between the same parties for claims to the same invention as the count of the interference.” This means that once a judgment of no interference-in-fact is issued,…
Read More