Dadgar v. Gill

THIS OPINION WAS WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
is binding precedent of the Interference Trial Section of the Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The opinion is otherwise not
binding precedent. The decision was entered on 9 February 1999
Paper No. 25
Filed by: Trial Section
Box Interference
Washington, D.C. 20231 Entered
Tel: 703-308-9797 9 February 1999
Fax: 703-305-0942
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
DADGAR,
Junior Party,
v.
GILL,
Senior Party
_______________
Patent Interference No. 104,249
_______________
Before: McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge, and
SCHAFER, LEE and TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKELVEY, Senior Administrative Patent Judge.
ORDER
A. Background
Receipt is acknowledged of a paper styled JOINT
COMMUNICATION FROM PARTIES *** DADGAR AND *** GILL (Paper 24).
According to the paper, "meaningful settlement negotiations
must include business representatives of the parties," but
"[s]cheduling difficulties have prevented a meeting of business
representatives within the time frame" set out in the NOTICE

- 2 -
DECLARING INTERFERENCE (Paper 1). Further according to the
paper, "[t]he parties intend to hold settlement discussions as
soon as representatives' schedules permit . . . ."
One possible reading of the information provided in the
paper that an interference is to be conducted in a manner solely
for the convenience of the parties. However, the interference
rules recognize another consideration, i.e., the need for the
exercise of discretion by the board in carrying out its duty of
managing the administrative process, the business of the board
and the administration of justice in a fair and even-handed
manner. Compare Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc.,
727 F.2d 1540, 1549-50, 221 USPQ 1, 10 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
(discussing a similar balance and need with respect to district
courts under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).
The paper does not say what effort was made by the business
representatives to meet to discuss settlement. Likewise, the
paper sets forth no date when settlement discussions are expected
to take place. Hence, the paper makes it clear that the
proceedings in this interference may be unacceptably open-ended.
In an effort to minimize the possibility that delays in
conducting settlement discussions will otherwise delay times for
taking action in the interference, entry of an order is believed
to be necessary. Presently, preliminary motions are due on or
before 12 March 1999. The order will provide that unless
settlement discussions take place and the board is notified of

- 3 -
the results of those settlement discussions, all before 8 March
1999, no preliminary motions can be filed.
B. Order
Upon consideration of the paper styled JOINT COMMUNICATION
FROM PARTIES *** DADGAR AND *** GILL (Paper 24), and for the
reasons given, it is
ORDERED that unless on or before 8 March 1999
settlement discussions take place and the board is notified of
the results of those settlement discussions, no preliminary
motions can be filed.
FURTHER ORDERED that this opinion shall be published
without identifying the parties or their counsel.
FRED E. McKELVEY, Senior )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
RICHARD E. SCHAFER )
Administrative Patent Judge ) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMESON LEE ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9 February 1999
Arlington, VA

- 4 -
cc (via Fax and First Class Mail):
Attorney for Dadgar
(real party in interest
Albemarle Corporation):
Rudolf E. Hutz, Esq.
Robert G. McMorrow, Jr., Esq.
CONNOLLY, BOVE, LODGE & HUTZ
Philip M. Pippenger, Esq.
Patent and Trademark Division
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION
Attorney for Gill
(real party in interest
Ferro Corporation):
Wayne D. Porter, Jr., Esq.
Randolph E. Digges, III, Esq.
RANKIN, HILL, PORTER & CLARK, LLP