655, 190 USPQ 117, 122 (1976) ( a four-year delay in filing a patent application after the invention
was perfected was unreasonably long); Shindelar v. Holdeman, 628 F.2d 1337, 1342, 207 USPQ
112, 116 (1980) (holding suppression or concealment because no reasonable explanation was given
for the two-year and five-month delay between reduction to practice and the filing of a patent
application). Sugano does not allege intentional suppression or concealment, so only inferred
suppression or concealment is at issue here.
In Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d 1326, 1330, 217 USPQ 753, 756 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting
International Glass Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 395, 403, 159 USPQ 434, 441 (Ct. Cl. 1968)),
the court held:
The courts have consistently held that an invention, though completed, is
deemed abandoned, suppressed, or concealed if, within a reasonable time
after completion, no steps are taken to make the invention publicly known.
Thus, failure to file a patent application; to describe the invention in a
publicly disseminated document; or to use the invention publicly, have been
held to constitute abandonment, suppression or concealment.
There is no per se period which constitutes a “reasonable time” or “unreasonable time” with regard
to an inference of suppression or concealment. Indeed, the time elapsed is not the controlling factor.
Rather, it is the total conduct of the first inventor. Fujikawa, 93 F.3d at 1567, 39 USPQ2d at 1902,
citing Young v. Dworkin, 489 F.2d 1277, 1285, 180 USPQ 388, 395 (CCPA 1974) (Rich, Judge,
concurring). The circumstances surrounding the first inventor’s delay and the reasonableness of that
delay are important facts which must be considered. Fujikawa, 93 F.3d at 1567, 39 USPQ2d at 1902.
The total conduct of the first inventor includes the inventor's activities during the delay period (e.g.,
he may have worked during that period to refine or perfect the invention disclosed in the patent
application); Lutzker v. Plet, 843 F.2d 1364, 1367, 6 USPQ2d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1988);
Horwath v. Lee, 564 F.2d 948, 952, 195 USPQ 701, 705 (CCPA 1977); Young, 489 F.2d at 1281
n.3, 180 USPQ at 391-92 n.3; Frey v. Wagner, 87 F.2d 212, 215, (CCPA 1937) ("The law does not
punish an inventor for attempting to perfect his process before he gives it to the public."). However,
where the delay is due to work on refinements or improvements which are not reflected in the final
patent application, the delay will not be excused. Lutzker, 843 F.2d at 1367, 6 USPQ2d at 1372 ;
Horwath, 564 F.2d at 952, 195 USPQ at 706. The total conduct of the inventor also includes the
activities of other employees of the inventor’s assignee, such as the assignee’s patent department.
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007