l. When it is determined that a party suppressed
or concealed after an actual reduction to practice, the party is
not entitled to rely on that suppressed or concealed actual
reduction to practice in a priority contest. Paulik, 760 F.2d at
1275, 226 USPQ at 227-28. Stated in other terms, once it is
established that a party suppressed or concealed an actual
reduction to practice, evidence related to that actual reduction
to practice, in effect, becomes inadmissible. Evidence of
another actual reduction to practice, taking place after
suppression or concealment ceases, is admissible. Paulik, 760
F.2d at 1274, 226 USPQ at 226.
m. A delay of 23-253 months was found to be
unreasonable in Palmer v. Dudzik, particularly where personnel
from the opponent's assignee visited the party's plant between
the party's actual reduction to practice and the filing of a
patent application.
n. A delay of 27-28 months was found to be
unreasonable in Young v. Dworkin where little, if any, activity
was established between an actual reduction to practice and
filing a patent application.
o. A four year delay was found to be
unreasonable in Peeler v. Miller even though it had not been
established that any individual in the employ of the party's
assignee had any actual intent to suppress or conceal.
3 The delay is characterized as being 23-25 months because an actual
reduction to practice is said to have taken place in the Fall of the year (i.e.,
late September through late December).
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007