(4) “I believe that I began drafting Case 33136, following the ordinary sequence of cases
appearing on my docket, sometime in early to mid 1993.” GR 23, ¶ 44.
111. Exhibits GX 69 and GX 70 do not indicate when specific work was done on the cases
assigned to Bowman.
112. Bowman provides no details showing that deadlines necessitated that the cases be taken out
of sequence.
113. Bowman does not provide any specific details as to when work was actually done on the
specific cases assigned to him.
114. Bowman testified that during the period from May 22, 1992, to August 31, 1993, he also
worked on an application (Case 33120) said to be closely related to the invention of the count and
that much of the work on that case carried over to Case 33136. GR 27, ¶ 54.
115. Bowman does not explain how Case 33120 and 33136 are closely related or how the work
on 33120 substantially contributed to the preparation of the 33136.
Discussion
A.
Sugano does not challenge that Geerts was the first to actually reduce the invention to
practice between March 3, 1989, and September 7, 1990. Notwithstanding Geerts earlier reductions
to practice, Sugano asserts that judgment should be awarded against Geerts because Geerts should
be held to have suppressed or concealed the invention. Paper 63, p. 4.
B.
The case law identifies two types of suppression or concealment, intentional and inferred.
Apotex USA, Inc. v. Merck & Co. Inc., 254 F.3d 1031, 1038, 59 USPQ2d 1139, 1144 (Fed. Cir.
2001); Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1567, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The
first involves the situation where an inventor or his assignee actively or deliberately suppresses or
conceals the invention from the public. Apotex, 254 F.3d at 1038, 59 USPQ2d at 1144; Fujikawa,
93 F.3d at 1567, 39 USPQ2d at 1901 (citing Kendall v. Winsor, 62 U.S. 322, 328 (1858)). The
second involves a legal inference of suppression or concealment because of an unreasonable delay
in filing a patent application. Apotex, 254 F.3d at 1038, 59 USPQ2d at 1144; Paulik v. Rizkalla,
760 F.2d 1270, 1273, 226 USPQ 224, 226 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc); Peeler v. Miller, 535 F.2d 647,
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007