Legal Definitions - interferant

An interferant refers to something that disrupts the accuracy or reliability of a process or test, particularly in two distinct legal contexts:

• In Chemical Analysis: An interferant is a substance or condition that compromises the proper function of a scientific test, making its results unreliable. This is especially relevant in legal cases where chemical analyses, such as blood, breath, or urine tests, are used as evidence.

  • Example 1 (Drug Testing): Imagine a person takes a common over-the-counter decongestant containing pseudoephedrine. If they then undergo a urine drug screening, the pseudoephedrine could be mistakenly identified as an illegal stimulant, leading to a false positive result. In this situation, the decongestant acts as an interferant because it skews the accuracy of the drug test.

  • Example 2 (Breathalyzer Test): A driver with a medical condition like severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) might have stomach contents, including alcohol vapors, rise into their mouth. If they then take a breathalyzer test, the device could detect these vapors, potentially leading to an inflated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading, even if the alcohol hasn't fully entered their bloodstream. Here, the GERD condition or the refluxed material could be considered an interferant because it interferes with the breathalyzer's ability to accurately measure alcohol from deep lung air.

• In Patent Law (Historical Context): Historically, an interferant referred to a party involved in an "interference proceeding" at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This type of proceeding was used to determine which of two or more inventors was the first to invent a particular technology when multiple parties filed patent applications for the same or very similar inventions. While the term "interferant" has largely been replaced by "contestant" since the 1960s, it described a participant in such a dispute.

  • Example 1 (Corporate Invention Dispute): Company X files a patent application for a groundbreaking new solar panel design. Shortly thereafter, Company Y files a patent application for what appears to be an identical invention, claiming their research team developed it first. If the USPTO initiated an interference proceeding to resolve this dispute over who invented it first, both Company X and Company Y would have historically been referred to as interferants in that process.

  • Example 2 (Individual vs. University): Dr. Chen, an independent researcher, applies for a patent on a novel gene-editing technique. A few months later, a major university's research department also applies for a patent on a very similar technique, asserting their discovery predates Dr. Chen's filing. If the USPTO had to determine priority of invention through an interference proceeding, both Dr. Chen and the university would have been considered interferants in that legal battle.