Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
Instructions from APJs on Rules of Evidence
| March 18, 2013
When the patent owner filed its Preliminary Response in LKQ Corp. v. Clearlamp, LLC, IPR2013-00020, it challenged three references, taken from the Internet and relied upon in the Request. These Internet references, the patent owner argued, were not authenticated, amounted to hearsay, and therefore should be excluded from the evidentiary record.
The APJs might simply have ignored the patent owners’ remarks, but chose instead to treat them as a motion to exclude the three references. That motion, the APJs found, was premature because it failed to follow the procedural steps required by the applicable rule. They explained:
When a party objects to evidence that was submitted during a preliminary proceeding, such an objection must be served within ten business days of the institution of trial. The objection to the evidence must identify the grounds for objection with sufficient particularity to allow correction in the form of supplemental evidence.
See 37 CFR § 42.64(b)(1) & (2). Once this process is complete, and if the objecting party is still dissatisfied, it may file a motion to exclude.
In an aside that practitioners will note, the APJs acknowledged that “[w]ith few exceptions, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to inter partes proceedings,” citing 37 CFR § 42.62.
