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 party to suggest an interference that ends with a no interference-in-fact judgment. Importantly, the party suggesting the interference does not face negative consequences, such as losing the interference or being subject to estoppel, simply for making the suggestion.
To learn more:
Topics:
MPEP 2300 - Interference And Derivation Proceedings,
MPEP 2308.03(B) - No Interference - In - Fact,
Patent Law,
Patent Procedure