What’s Laid is Played


In Mobotix Corp. v. E-Watch Corporation, IPR2013-00335, Paper 35 (April 14, 2014), the Board denied the petitioner’s request to add two pinpoint citations to its reply brief, which the petitioner claimed were inadvertently omitted, but were referenced in the accompanying expert declaration.  The patent owner argued that the changes would constitute a substantive alteration of the Reply Brief after its due date, and thus be prejudicial to Patent Owner, and the Board Agreed, apparently following the old card game rule: What’s laid is played.

Written by:

Published In:

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 »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.