Some Observations on Observations

more+
less-
more+
less-

In Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentainer Water Pool and Spa, Inc., IPR2013-00285, Paper 31, IPR2013-00287, Paper 31 (July 3, 2014), the Board provided some guidance on observations on cross-examination, answering the question whether a party can file observations on the cross-examination of its own witness. The Board expalined that the party taking the cross-examination files the observations.  Observations on cross-examination are not an opportunity to rehabilitate testimony given by a witness under cross-examination, and the Board cautioned that such observations would not be appropriate, citing CBS Interactive Inc. v. Wireless Science, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 101, 3-5 (discussing the presentation of observations). Clarifying or otherwise rehabilitating testimony should be the subject of redirect of the witness after the cross-examination.

 

Topics:  Cross Examination, Witnesses

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Intellectual Property Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Harness Dickey, founded in Michigan in 1921, specializes in intellectual property law. The firm’s... View Profile »


Follow Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC:

Reporters on Deadline