Flex-Rest v. Steelcase (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Flex-Rest holds at least two patents on negative-tilt computer keyboards and sued for infringement. Steelcase, the defendant, had an earlier conception date, but Flex-Rest argued that 102(g) should not apply because Steelcase had concealed the invention (either intentionally or unreasonably).
Here, there was a seven month delay from Steelcase’s reduction to practice and public release of its product (timed with the filing of its own patent application).
Intentional Concealment: As it turns out, a seven month delay alone does not constitute intentional suppression or concealment:
"Intentional suppression, however, requires more than the passage of time. It requires evidence that the inventor intentionally delayed filing in order to prolong the period during which the invention is maintained in secret." quoting Fujikawa.
The record demonstrates that after reduction to practice, Steelcase moved almost immediately towards both filing a patent application and commercially disclosing the KBS device at a trade show, actions which indicate an intent to make a public disclosure.
The CAFC found that keeping the device secret while preparing a patent application and/or preparing for a trade show release "is not, by itself, indicative of intentional suppression or concealment."
Unreasonable Delay: The failure to bring forth an invention, either publicly or in a patent application within a reasonable amount of time will support an inference of suppression or concealment. "There is no particular length of delay that is per se unreasonable." Here, the CAFC agreed that the seven month delay was not unreasonable:
After reduction to practice, Steelcase resolved design issues and spent $775,000 on tooling for the parts to the KBS device. The lead times for creating the tooling varied from four weeks to approximately six months. Therefore, it does not appear that Steelcase could have brought the KBS device to market much sooner than the trade show unveiling in June 1991.
At the same time, Steelcase’s patent counsel began drafting a patent application for the KBS device, submitting a first draft to Steelcase in March 1991. The draft was reviewed by the four named inventors and filed in May 1991. No evidence indicated that this amount of time was unreasonably long.
In the process, the Court also shot-down the urban myth of a court sanctioned three-month patent prep deadline derived from the old Shindelar case.
Flex-Rest’s argument that Shindelar identifies a reasonable amount of time for drafting when the court stated that “a period of approximately three months could possibly be excused” takes that quote out of context. . . . What constitutes a reasonable time for drafting a patent application will vary with the technology and the particular set of facts involved in each case.