The Patent Office has published a final rule with amendments to 37 CFR § 42, et seq., governing IPR, CBM, PGR, and derivation proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The new rules take effect Monday, May 2,
In HTC Corp. v. NFC Tech., LLC, the PTAB granted the Petitioner’s motion to strike and expunge the declaration of the Patent Owner’s non-party witness, who refused to submit to cross-examination. IPR2014-01198, Paper 41 (Nov. 6, 2015).
The
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
In Pacific Market Int’l v. Ignite USA, LLC, the PTAB authorized submission of six videos as exhibits along with the Patent Owner Response. IPR2014-00561, Paper 27 (Feb. 5, 2015).
37 C.F.R. § 42.53(a) states that “[u]ncompelled direct testimony
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
In Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc. v. Employment Law Compliance, Inc., the PTAB denied the Patent Owner’s motion for authorization to compel third party testimony and production of documents regarding whether a reference qualified as a “printed publication,” finding that
In Valeo, Inc. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., the PTAB declined to grant the Patent Owner’s request to order a deposition of Petitioner’s declarant, stating that the Patent Owner was not prevented from deposing the declarant earlier merely because the declarant’s
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
In Medtronic Inc. v. Troy R. Norred, the PTAB warned that “speaking objections” interposed by Patent Owner’s counsel during deposition of Patent Owner’s expert were improper under the Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, and that further violations of the
In Mexichem Amanco Holdings S.A. de C.V. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a patent owner’s request for additional discovery that sought the deposition of a declarant whose testimony was relied on by