Alberta Telecommunications v. Rambus 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81093 Northern District of California, Decided Oct. 24, 2006 Judge Whyte Alberta alleged an action for interference under 35 U.S.C. Ã?Â§ 291 between one of its patents and an expired patent owned by Rambus. Judge Whyte held Ã¢â?¬Å?[a]bsent interference, a court has no power under Ã?Â§ 291 to adjudicate the validity of any patent.Ã¢â?¬Â? The determinative factor is whether or not an interference has in fact been established. Therefore, the court does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate validity of a patent unless an interference has been established; an allegation is insufficient. The argument that Rambus purposely allowed the patent to expire did not sufficiently distinguish the case from Albert v. Kevex Corp., 729 F.2d 757 (Fed. Cir. 1984), for Judge Whyte. The rule in Albert said Ã¢â?¬Å?[a] claim under Ã?Â§ 291, however, depends so completely on the existence of interference that lack of it, whenever it becomes apparent, must be deemed fatal to jurisdiction.” Beware, Ã?Â§ 291 shall not be used as a loophole to determine validity.