United States Federal Circuit

In a dispute between manufacturers of dishwashing detergent tablets, a judgment awarding priority in a patent interference to the Procter & Gamble Company is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Board legally erred in imposing a requirement for reduction to practice not warranted by the language of the interference count; and 2) the Board's factual findings support reduction to practice under the correct requirements of the count.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/11/2007
• Published 05/11/2007

Judges

• LINN, Circuit Judge., Before GAJARSA, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Federal Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Rudolf E. Hutz, Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, of Wilmington, Delaware, argued for appellant.   With him on the brief were Robert G. McMorrow, Jr., and Aaron R. Ettelman.   Of counsel was Mark E. Freeman.


• For Appellees:
  
• Mark A. Charles, The Procter & Gamble Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio, argued for appellee.