Interference No. 104,190
forfeited the right to rely on the date of reduction to
practice in an interference with one who independently made
the invention and promptly filed a patent application. See,
for example, Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948, 195 USPQ 701 (CCPA
1977).
Fact situations surrounding suppression and
concealment issues require consideration on a case-by-case
basis. Id. at 949, 195 USPQ at 703. Among the objective
factors to be con-sidered in assessing an alleged instance of
abandonment, suppression, or concealment are: 1) the length of
the delay period after the reduction to practice but before
the filing of an application for patent or commercialization
of the invention; Peeler at 654, 190 USPQ at 123 (inactivity
period of senior party long enough to give rise to an
inference of abandonment, suppression, or concealment); 2) the
activities pursued by the inventor, his counsel and assignee
during the alleged period of abandonment, suppression or
concealment; see, for example, Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d
1326, 217 USPQ 753 (Fed. Cir. 1983)(activities during 17
month period between reduction to practice and filing
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007