What’s Laid is Played

more+
less-

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.


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

Written by:

more+
less-

Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest 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. Or, sign up using your email address.
×
Loading...
×
×