In Texas Instruments Incorporated, v. Unifi Scientific Batteries, LLC, IPR2013-00213, Paper 27 (April 17, 2014), the Board said that:
A motion to strike is not, ordinarily, a proper mechanism for raising the issue of whether a reply or reply evidence is beyond the proper scope permitted under the rules.
The Board explained that in the absence of special circumstance, the Board determines whether a reply and supporting evidence contain material exceeding the proper scope when it reviews all of the pertinent papers and prepare the final written decision. The Board may exclude all or portions of Petitioner’s reply and newly submitted evidence, or decline to consider any improper argument and related evidence, at that time.
This is consistent with the advice the Board gave a week earlier in in ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00062 and IPR-00282, Paper 84 (April 11, 2014), and ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00074 and IPR-00286, Paper 80 (April 11, 2014), where the Board said that if an issue arises regarding whether a reply argument or evidence in support of a reply exceeds the scope of a proper reply, the parties should contact the Board to discuss the issue. At least this way the party can alert the Board to the issue.