r. A 22 month delay was found to be unreasonable
by the board in Smith v. Crivello.
s. In Correge v. Murphy, the CCPA found it
unnecessary to determine whether a 7 month delay was
unreasonable, because the party had established that significant
events had taken place on specific dates to (1) prepare and sign
an invention disclosure, (2) file the invention disclosure with a
corporate patent department, (3) authorize a search, (4) analyze
the search results, (5) authorize the filing of a patent
application and (6) actually disclose the invention to the public
seven months after the actual reduction to practice.
t. A 33 month delay was found to be unreasonable
by the board in Holmwood v. Cherpeck.
u. A 51 month delay was found to be unreasonable
in Lutzker v. Plet.
v. A 17 month delay was found not to be
unreasonable in Fujikawa v. Wattanasin. In Fujikawa, there was
evidence that during a 17-month "delay" that at least the
following events took place: (1) testing toward perfecting
invention, including in vivo experiments, (2) patent committee
approval for filing of application, (3) work over several months
by patent attorneys to collect data from inventors. While there
was a 3-month unexplained delay, the Federal Circuit determined,
in context, that an unexplained 3-month period was not sufficient
basis for holding delay unreasonable.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007