iTakeaway: A party may be able to recoup costs of a subsequent deposition if the party was not previously advised that the expert would require an interpreter.
In its Order, the Board authorized Petitioner to file a motion seeking recuperation of costs ultimately necessary to conduct Patent Owner’s Expert’s deposition, should the parties be unable to reach agreement in that regard. During a call with the panel, Petitioner explained that upon arrival in California to cross-examine Patent Owner’s Expert, it learned for the first time that the expert required an interpreter. The declaration testimony of the expert was submitted in English and there was no indication that the expert was not proficient in English. Petitioner desired its own Czech interpreter at the deposition, but given the time constraints, Petitioner could not obtain a suitable check interpreter in time for the scheduled deposition. Petitioner requested that the deposition be moved to sometime in September, but Patent Owner represented that the expert was not available any time in September for a deposition in the United States.
Upon questioning by the panel, Patent Owner indicated that the expert might be available for a deposition in Taiwan during the month of September. Petitioner asked whether they could recoup costs from Patent Owner for costs in connection with the discontinued deposition on August 27, and any subsequent costs of a later scheduled deposition. The panel indicated that Petitioner could file a motion seeking recuperation of costs if an agreement could not be reached on this issue.
Wintek Corp. v. TPK Touch Solutions, IPR2013-00567, IPR2013-00568, IPR2014-00541
Paper 40: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding
Dated: August 28, 2014
Patent 8,217,902
Before: Josiah C. Cocks, Richard E. Rice, and Toni R. Scheiner
Written by: Cocks
