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
Scope of Live Testimony in Final IPR Hearings
| June 4, 2014
Last week we reported that in K-40 Electronics v. Escort (IPR2013-00203), the APJs had granted the Patent Owner’s request that its inventor be allowed to give live testimony on his invention’s conception date, presumably to remove the references as prior art. The APJs explained that live testimony was appropriate in view of the type of testimony to be presented. They set a procedure, however, in which the inventor first would be cross-examined by the Petitioner on his declaration, followed by re-direct examination by the Patent Owner.
The Petitioner has now asked for reconsideration of the grant of live testimony, explaining, inter alia, that it has “[n]o further questions” for the inventor. If there is no cross by the Petitioner, there should be no re-direct by the Patent Owner.
The APJs cut through the back-and-forth between the parties and ordered a new schedule for the testimony:
- the inventor’s testimony “will be limited to up to 30 minutes of direct testimony by Patent Owner’s counsel, followed by up to 30 minutes of cross-examination by Petitioner’s counsel, and any redirect examination will be at the discretion of the Board;”
- the Petitioner may submit up to 30 minutes of video recording of inventor’s deposition testimony, no later than five business days after the final hearing;
- the inventor’s live cross-examination by Petitioner’s counsel is optional; Petitioner may rely on the inventor’s deposition transcript, or the video record of that deposition, in lieu of or in addition to live cross-examination of the inventor at the hearing; and
- the inventor’s direct examination “will be strictly limited to his declaration testimony in this proceeding and the scope of his cross-examination will strictly be limited to the scope of direct examination.”
Clearly, the APJs are experimenting with the oral hearing, but if the above schedule works here, it might become the standard.
In another procedural order regarding oral hearings, the APJs denied a request by the four Petitioners in Oracle v. Click-to-Call (IPR2013-00312) for one hour to make its argument, finding that 45 minutes for each side would be sufficient.
