December 6, 2022

Volume XII, Number 340

Advertisement

December 06, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 05, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Neste Oil OYJ v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, Denying Motion for Leave to File Motion to Strike Reply Evidence IPR2013-00578

Takeaway: When the Board follows its typical practice of waiting until after oral argument to determine if reply evidence was improperly submitted , a patent owner relies on that evidence at its own peril because it risks basing its arguments on improper evidence that ultimately is not considered.

In its Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for permission to file a motion to strike Patent Owner’s reply exhibits.

Petitioner contended that seven exhibits submitted with Patent Owner’s reply included new evidence concerning conception, diligence, and suitability for intended use were part of Patent Owner’s prima facie case of prior invention and should not have been submitted for the first time in a reply. Petitioner also argued that it was deprived of the opportunity to present expert testimony on the evidence and to respond to the new evidence in a brief. Patent Owner argued that it had raised the prior invention arguments earlier and that the new exhibits merely were submitted to respond to specific arguments Petitioner made in its opposition brief.

The Board noted that it can determine for itself whether the objected-to evidence was improperly submitted—and, if so, disregard it— and then declined to deviate from its typical practice of waiting until after oral hearing to determine if any reply evidence was improperly submitted. However, it cautioned Patent Owner that it relies on any newly submitted evidence at its own peril because it risks basing its prior invention argument on evidence that, ultimately, may not be considered because it was improperly submitted.

Neste Oil OYJ v. REG Synthetic Fuels, LLC, IPR2013-00578
Paper 33: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding
Dated: September 25, 2014
Patent 8,231,804
Before: Rama G. Elluru and Christoper L. Crumbley
Written by: Crumbley

© 2022 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 276
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

The Intellectual Property Litigation Practice at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP recognizes that a successful IP enforcement strategy can make an important contribution to a company's bottom line. Our attorneys help a wide variety of clients protect what is theirs and police the marketplace against infringements and unfair competitive practices.

Our attorneys have litigated infringement suits across a broad range of industries and technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, dental methods, computer software, automobile designs,...

312-569-1375
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement