Interference No. 104,403
asserting the suppression and concealment. Gallagher v. Smith, 206
F.2d 939, 946, 99 USPQ 132, 138 (CCPA 1953).
In the instant case, as the junior party has established that he
reduced the invention of the count to practice on August 14, 1992 prior
to the April 14, 1994 effective filing date of the senior party’s involved
application, the junior party as the first to reduce the invention of the
count to practice would ordinarily be entitled to a patent on the
invention of the count. However, a second inventor may be awarded
priority of invention if he can show that the other party (the junior party
in this case) who was first to reduce the invention to practice,
suppressed or concealed the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 102(g); Paulik v.
Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 1271-72, 226 USPQ 224, 224-25 (Fed. Cir.
1985).
Our reviewing court stated in Correge v. Murphy, 705 F.2d at
1330, 217 USPQ at 756 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (quoting International Glass
Co. v. United States, 408 F.2d 395, 403, 159 USPQ 434, 441 (Ct. Cl.
1968):
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
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007