July 2, 2020

Volume X, Number 184

July 02, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

July 01, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

June 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Steadymed Ltd. v. United Therapeutics Corp. - Motion to Submit Supplemental Information as to Translation Accuracy Granted IPR2016-00006

Takeaway: A declaration attesting to the accuracy of a translation of foreign prior art submitted as supplemental information is permissible if the request to submit supplemental information is made within one month of the date of trial institution, the information is relevant to the patentability of the claims, and it does not change the evidence initially presented in the petition.

In its Decision, the Board granted Petitioner’s unopposed motion to submit two declarations attesting to the accuracy of the English translation of a Japanese Patent Application to Kawakami as supplemental information.  As the moving party, Petitioner bears the burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief.

Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a), a party may file a motion to submit supplemental information if the following requirements are met:  (1) a request for authorization to file such motion is made within one month of the date the trial was instituted; and (2) the supplemental information must be relevant to a claim for which trial has been instituted.

Here, Petitioner “sought authorization to file its motion via correspondence dated May 6, 2016, which is within one month of the institution date in this proceeding of April 8, 2016.”  Further, the supplemental information Petitioner seeks to submit “is relevant to the patentability of claims 6, 10, 15, 21, and 22, on which trial has been instituted under § 103(a) in view of Moriarty, Phares, Kawakami, and Eğe.”  Specifically, the declarations “allegedly confirm that Ex. 1007 is an accurate translation of Kawakami, and are, therefore, relevant to the patentability of claims 6, 10, 15, 21, and 22 in view of Moriarty, Phares, Kawakami, and Eğe.”  The Board was also persuaded that Petitioner met its burden because the supplemental information “does not change the grounds of unpatentability authorized in this proceeding, nor does it change the evidence initially presented in the Petition to support those grounds of unpatentability.”  Thus, the Motion was granted.

Steadymed Ltd. v. United Therapeutics Corp., IPR2016-00006
Paper 25: Decision on Petitioner’s Motion for Supplemental Information
Dated: May 11, 2016
Patent: 8,497,393 B2
Before: Lora M. Green, Joni Y. Chang, and Jacqueline T. Harlow
Written by: Harlow

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VI, Number 148

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


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