In Westlake Services, LLC v Credit Acceptance Corp., Petitioner was denied authorization to file a motion to compel the deposition testimony of the named inventor for the patent under review. CBM2014-00176, Paper 29 (May 18, 2015).
Although Patent
PTAB clarifies what qualifies as “new” testimony in a Preliminary Response
In B/E Aerospace, Inc. v MAG Aerospace Industries, LLC, the PTAB decided that testimonial evidence submitted in the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, which was created for related litigation, was “new” testimonial evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(c). IPR2014-01510, Paper
PTAB authorizes petitioner’s reply to preliminary response
In Johnson Health Tech Co. LTD v. Icon Health and Fitness, Inc., the PTAB authorized the Petitioner to file a Reply to the Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response in an IPR proceeding. IPR2014-01242, Paper 12 (November 28, 2014).
35
PTAB orders discovery of law firm invoices without reaching the question of waiver
In GEA Process Engineering, Inc. v. Steuben Foods, Inc., the PTAB ordered Petitioner to produce invoices from its counsel, based on Patent Owner’s argument that related entities represented by Petitioner’s counsel in the related district court litigation were real-parties-in-interest
No getting clever with page limits: PTAB denies IPR petition citing primarily to expert declaration
In Fidelity Nat’l Info. Serv., Inc. v. Datatreasury Corp., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied an IPR Petition that cited primarily to an expert declaration as failing to contain a “full statement of the reasons for the