Interference No. 104,843 Paper 51
Kundu v. Ragunathan Page 4
[08] Kundu filed its involved 623 application on 21 July 2000 (Paper 31, admitted fact 0049).
Kundu has not claimed [2001] and was not accorded (Paper 15 at 3) the benefit of any
earlier application.
[09] Kundu’s 623 application was filed twenty-seven months after the application for
Ragunathan’s involved 065 patent was filed and one day short of five months after the
065 patent issued.
[10] Kundu has alleged an actual reduction to practice for the subject matter of the count of
29 August 1997 (Paper 31, contested fact [0007], which cites [2003, ¶¶3-7]), which is
eight days short of thirty-five months before its earliest effective filing date.
[11] Absent some compelling explanation, it is unreasonable to file an initial application
thirty-five months after an actual reduction to practice and five months after the issuance
of a patent to another for the subject matter of the actual reduction to practice.
[12] Filing the initial application five months after the issue date of the senior party patent and
simultaneously seeking an interference with the patent creates an inference of spurring.
[13] Kundu does not dispute the length of the delay or the timing of the events relevant to the
delay and apparent spurring. Instead, Kundu argues that activity during the contested
period overcomes any inference of suppression (Paper 31 at 13-26).
5 Notice declaring interference.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007