party suppressed or concealed the invention. Id. 628 F.2d at
1342-3, 207 USPQ at 116-7.
In its principal brief, Weaver argues that Rowland
abandoned, suppressed or concealed its invention. Specifically,
Weaver argues that if Rowland's activities in October 1991
amounted to a reduction to practice of the invention of the
count, then Rowland's delay until May 1994, to file an
application created an inference that Rowland suppressed the
invention, thus requiring Rowland to demonstrate otherwise (Paper
101 at 7). Weaver recognizes that Rowland submitted, in
connection with its priority case, evidence showing activities
that occurred after Rowland's October 1991 reduction to practice.
However, Weaver argues that the activities were towards improving
the product, in which event the improvements were not
demonstrated to be part of Rowland's May 1994 application. Then
by law, Weaver argues, Rowland's acts of improvement cannot
justify the delay towards filing Rowland's application (Paper 101
at 9).
Rowland argues that Weaver has not demonstrated that Rowland
suppressed or concealed the invention, since Weaver ignored
Rowland's evidence. We disagree. There is an inference of
suppression or concealment when there is an unreasonably long
lapse of time between the actual reduction to practice and the
filing of the application. Here, the 31 months between the 11
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007