Six and a Half Months from Conception to Commercialization Did Not Allow Instruction on Suppression or Concealment

Case: Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc., No. 05-1354, 05-1367 (Fed. Cir. 7/13/06)

The One Sentence Summary: Although withholding photographs of another device was not inequitable conduct, patent infringement claims failed after a jury found anticipation in light of defendant's device that was not suppressed or concealed.


What They Were Fighting About: In this patent infringement case, the '489 and '231 patents concerned ergonomic keyboard rests. A jury found that the '489 patent was invalid as anticipated or obvious in light of an earlier device made by defendant in the United States and not suppressed or concealed (35 U.S.C. 102(g)). The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the '231 patent, and found no inequitable conduct on the '489 patent due to withholding photographs of another device.

Federal Circuit Holdings:

• The district court correctly refused to give a jury instruction on intentional suppression and concealment because there was no evidence of intentional suppression. Defendant disclosed its device six and one half months after inventing it, and in the intervening time, it prepared a patent application and prepared to present it at a trade show. Thus, the device was properly considered as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g), and allowed the jury's finding of anticipation or obviousness.
• The district court did not err in deciding that an expert in ergonomics was not qualified as one of ordinary skill in the art of keyboard system design.
• As to the '231 patent, the district court properly construed the claim as a requiring a "sidewall" extending up and forming part of the keyboard surface support. A summary judgment of non-infringement based on this construction was proper.
• The panel affirmed the district court's finding of no inequitable conduct. The district court found no intent to deceive by withholding undated photographs of a competitor's device when the applicant believed that the photographs were unreliable and cumulative of a patent that the applicant disclosed in an IDS.