Hausknechtv.Nieman et al.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2013

12021610 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2013)

NOTICE: "Any agreement or understanding between parties to an interference, including any
collateral agreements referred to therein, made in connection with or in contemplation of the
termination of the interference, shall be in writing and a true copy thereof filed in the Patent and
Trademark Office before the termination of the interference as between the said parties to the
agreement or understanding." 35 U.S.C. 135(c) (2012); see also Bd.R. 205 (settlement
agreements).

BoxInterferences@uspto.gov Paper 23
Telephone: 571-272-4683 ENTERED: 29 October 2013

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Patent Interference No. 105,963 (RT)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
as represented by the Secretary,
Department of Health and Human Services,
and
Laboratoire HRA-Pharma, SA
(8,299,050),
Junior Party,

v.

DANCO LABORATORIES LLC
(13/350,695 and 13/964,285),
Senior Party.

Before: RICHARD TORCZON, DEBORAH KATZ and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.

JUDGMENT
Bd.R. 127(b)
requested

Interference No. 105,963 Page 2

The senior party (Danco) concedes
1
the priority of the junior party for all of
Danco's involved claims.
2
Danco has also filed amendments cancelling all of its
involved claims.
3
Accordingly, we enter judgment against Danco for the subject
matter of count 1.
4
Claims 67-74, 76-78 and 80-100 of Danco's 13/350,695
application and claims 67-74 of Danco's 13/964,285 application
5
are FINALLY
REFUSED.
6
A copy of this judgment shall be entered in the administrative record
for each of the involved patent and applications.

cc:

MICHAEL A. DAVITZ, Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz, of New York, New York;
MAXIM H. WALDBAUM, Eaton & Van Winkle, of New York, New York; and
TAREK N. FAHMI, Fahmi, Sellers, Embert & Davitz, of San Jose, California.

DON J. PELTO, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, of Washington, D.C.,
and DARREN FRANKLIN, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, of Los
Angeles, California.

1
Paper 21 (Req. Adv. J.).
2
Bd.R. 127(b)(3) (concession of priority).
3
Bd.R. 127(b)(2) (cancellation of all involved claims).
4
Paper 1 (Decl'n) at 3 ("The method of 8,299,050 claim 1").
5
Paper 16 (Redecl'n) at 3.
6
35 U.S.C. 135(a) (2012).