Furcht et al.v.Furcht et al. V. Furcht et al. V. Ho et al. V. Ho et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 26, 201411238234 - (J) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2014) Copy Citation BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 214 Tel: 571-272-4683 Filed 26 September 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ TONY W. HO GENE C. KOPEN, WILLIAM F. RIGHTER, J. JYNN RUTKOWSKI, JOSEPH WAGNER, W. JOSEPH HERRING, and VANESSA RAGAGLIA Junior Party Application 10/251,685 and 09/960,244 v. LOE T. FURCHT, CATHERIN M. VERFAILLIE, and MORYMA REYES, Senior Party Patent 7,659,118, Application 11/084,256, and Patent 7,015,037 Patent Interference No. 105,953 SGL Technology Center 1600 Before: FRED E. McKELVEY, SALLY GARDNER LANE, and DEBORAH KATZ, Administrative Patent Judges. McKELVEY, Administrative Patent Judge. JUDGMENT 2 In view of our Decision on Motions (Paper 212) granting Ho Motion 2 (lack 1 of written description), it is— 2 ORDERED that judgment be entered against senior party 3 Loe T. Furcht, Catherin M. Verfaillie, and Moryma Reyes, as to Count 1 4 (reproduced in Paper 213) 5 FURTHER ORDERED that claims 124-129 Furcht’s involved application 6 11/084,256 be finally refused, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 7 FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-9 and 12 Furcht's involved U.S. Paent 8 No. 7,659,118 be cancelled, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 9 FURTHER ORDERED that claims 1-5 Furcht's involved U.S. Patent 10 No. 7,015,037 be cancelled, 35 U.S.C. 135(a); 11 FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Judgment and the Decision 12 on Motions be entered in the administrative records of (1) Furcht U.S. Patent 13 No. 7,659,118, (2) Furcht U.S. Patent 7,015,037, (3) Furcht application 14 11/084,256, (4) Ho application 10/251,685, and (5) Ho application 09/960,244; and 15 FURTHER ORDERED that a party seeking judicial review timely serve 16 notice on the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 17 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 104.2. 1 18 NOTICE: "Any agreement or understanding between parties to an 19 interference, including any collateral agreements referred to therein, 20 made in connection with or in contemplation of the termination of the 21 1 This interference was declared on 26 June 2013. Since the interference was declared after 16 September 2012, judicial review is limited to an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Biogen Idec Ma, Inc. v. Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Civil No 13-13061-FDS (D. Mass. May 22, 2014) (Memorandum and Order on Motions to Dismiss). 3 interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the 1 Patent and Trademark Office before the termination of the 2 interference as between the said parties to the agreement or 3 understanding." 35 U.S.C. § 135(c); see also Bd.R. 205 (settlement 4 agreements). 5 4 Attorney for Ho: Cynthia M. Bouchez Thomas A. Haag Fanelli Haag and Kilger, PLLC cbouchez@fanellihaag.com thaag@fanellihaag.com Attorney for Furcht: R. Danny Huntington Sharon E. Crane Rothwell Figg Ernst & Manbeck, PC dhuntington@rfem.com scrane@rfem.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation