What does a judgment of “no interference-in-fact” mean in patent law?

Question

Accepted Answer

Source: FAQ (MPEP-Based) BlueIron Update: 2024-09-30 10 Rules 5 Related FAQs This page is an FAQ based on guidance from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. It is provided as guidance, with links to the ground truth sources. This is information only: it is not legal advice. 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 in a way that requires a formal interference proceeding to determine who has the right to the invention. Related Rules from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 10 rules Collapse No Estoppel After Judgment of No Interference MPEP 2308.03(b) Examiner Must Maintain Rejection Unless Overcome MPEP 2308 Required Priority Resolution After Interference MPEP 2308 Estoppel After Judgment Disposes of Issues MPEP 2308 Prohibited Losing Party Cannot Reopen Issues Adjudicated Against Them MPEP 2308 Prohibited Estoppel After Judgment for Properly Decided Issues MPEP 2308 Prohibited Losing Party Cannot Take Inconsistent Action Post-Judgment MPEP 2308 Prohibited Adverse Judgment Requires No Further Office Action MPEP 2308 Prohibited Adverse Judgment Is Final Disposal of Claim MPEP 2308 Prohibited Examiner Must Resume Prosecution After Interference Ends MPEP 2308 Other Related FAQs 5 FAQs Collapse What are the consequences of a judgment of no interference-in-fact for future interferences? Does a judgment of no interference-in-fact result in either party losing the interference? What is the relationship between a judgment of no interference-in-fact and patent priority? Can a party suggest an interference that results in a no interference-in-fact judgment? Can an applicant add or amend claims during an interference proceeding?