How can an inference of suppression or concealment be rebutted?
An inference of suppression or concealment can be rebutted by showing renewed activity on the invention just prior to the junior party’s entry into the field, coupled with diligent filing of a patent application. The MPEP provides several examples of activities that may rebut this inference:
- Showing activity directed to perfecting the invention
- Preparing the patent application
- Preparing other compounds within the scope of the generic invention
However, it’s important to note that not all activities will be sufficient to rebut the inference. For instance:
“[A]ctivities directed towards commercialization [are] not sufficient to rebut inference”
The key is to demonstrate that the inventor or assignee was actively working towards patent protection, rather than merely exploiting the invention commercially. Each case is evaluated on its specific circumstances, so it’s crucial to document all relevant activities related to the invention and its patenting process.
To learn more: