News & Analysis as of

Cross Examination Patent Litigation Patents

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Inventor Declaration Excluded by PTAB Because Examination in Foreign Proceeding No Substitute for Cross-Examination by IPR Counsel

In two related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted a petitioner’s motion to exclude the declaration of an inventor because the patent owner failed to make him available for...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Unavailability of Witness for Cross-Examination Dooms Reliance on Affidavit Testimony in PTAB Proceeding

In a series of related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted a petitioner’s motion to strike the sworn affidavit of a witness who was unwilling to submit to cross-examination. In...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Opposes Broad's Motion to Exclude Evidence and Broad Files Reply

Late last month, Junior Party University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (hereinafter, "CVC") and Senior Party The Broad Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and...more

Ward and Smith, P.A.

Stay in Your Lane: Defining the Scope of an IPR Deposition

Ward and Smith, P.A. on

The regulations governing discovery in an inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding do not provide for the same methods of discovery available in a patent infringement lawsuit. As such, when opportunities for discovery...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Owner Tip #2 for Surviving An Instituted IPR: Don’t Swing for the Fences in IPR Depositions

As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Patent Owner Tip #1 For Surviving An Instituted IPR: Approach IPR Depositions Like A Cross-Examination

As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”), one of the first and most critical tasks before you is deposing the Petitioner’s witnesses, including its experts. But approaching an IPR deposition like a...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (February 22-26): Who Needs Cross Examination? Issue Preclusion Before the PTAB

All eyes are on Arthrex this week, right?  So of course we decided to take a look at a Board decision, and one that—so says the dissent—creates a circuit split.  Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of...more

Smart & Biggar

Federal Court continues recent trend of granting summary judgment in appropriate patent proceedings

Smart & Biggar on

In a recent decision, Flatwork Technologies LLC v Brierley (2020 FC 997), the Federal Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff, Flatwork Technologies, LLC (Flatwork), in respect of its patent impeachment...more

Smart & Biggar

Effectively using experts in IP Litigation – Part 2: Practise

Smart & Biggar on

In intellectual property litigation, the outcome of many high stakes cases has turned on expert testimony. It is therefore important for a litigator to spend time and effort to properly identify, select, and prepare the...more

Goodwin

ITC 337 Quarterly Insider Q2 2020

Goodwin on

Goodwin’s 337 Quarterly Insider remains the premiere publicly available source for keeping up to date on all meaningful decisions coming out of the Commission. Please find below Goodwin’s insights on the months of April, May,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Files Reply to Broad Opposition to CVC's Motion to Exclude Broad Evidence

On April 17th, CVC filed its Reply to Broad's Opposition (filed on April 9th) to CVC's Miscellaneous Motion No. 2 to Exclude Evidence filed (on April 2nd), in Interference No 106,155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute,...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

CVC Files Motion to Exclude Broad Evidence; Broad Opposes

The latest installment in the cat-and-mouse game of deciding priority in Interference No 106,155 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively,...more

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Judge Hellerstein Allows Damages Expert Testimony as “Posture” Isn’t Everything

On January 14, 2020, United States District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Plaintiff Michael Philip Kaufman’s motion to exclude testimony from Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”)’s damages...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Orders Production of Raw Data and Instructions Underlying Test Results

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently issued an Order that illustrates the circumstances in which a party may obtain additional discovery in an inter partes review (IPR). In Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTAB: Lawyers Permitted to Confer with Witnesses to Prepare Redirect

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing the scope of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) guidelines that prohibit lawyers from conferring with their witness during cross-examination, the PTAB designated as precedential a 2014 decision permitting lawyers...more

Goodwin

Issue Eighteen: PTAB Trial Tracker

Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

Jones Day

Precedential PTAB Order Addresses Witness Examination

Jones Day on

The PTAB panel in Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., Case IPR2014-00116 (PTAB July 21, 2014) (Paper 19), provided certain clarifications with regard to the ability to confer with witnesses during examination. This...more

Kilpatrick

Counsel are Permitted to Confer with Witness Before Redirect

Kilpatrick on

On July 10, 2019, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel designated Focal Therapeutics, Inc. v. Senorx, Inc., IPR2014-00116, Paper 19 (PTAB July 21, 2014), as precedential. By way of background, during PTAB proceedings, direct...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

PTAB Clears Up Uncertainty Regarding the Rules on Conferring with a Witness During Inter Partes Review Depositions

Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

PTAB Update: Lectrosonics Designated as Precedential Providing Guidance on Amendment Practice in an Inter Partes Review

On March 7, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated the decision in Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom as precedential. The order provides guidance and information on practice surrounding a patent owner’s motion...more

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

PTAB Denies Request to Cross-Examine Experts Because Declarations Were Prepared for Other Proceedings and Were Not “Critical”...

In an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied Petitioner Nestlé Healthcare Nutrition, Inc.’s request to cross examine two expert witnesses after Patent Owner...more

Knobbe Martens

Recent Update on Patent Trial Practice Guide

Knobbe Martens on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published an update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (‘‘Trial Practice Guide’’) in August 2018 to revise guidance on practices before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more

Jones Day

Handling Improper Coaching of Witnesses During PTAB Deposition Proceedings

Jones Day on

Many attorneys have encountered an opposing party’s witness that provides very concise, supportive responses to the questions of the witness’s own attorney after a recess in a deposition. Often, these helpful responses occur...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Rolling the Dice on Foreign Depositions in IPR Proceedings

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In litigation, it is not uncommon for depositions to be taken outside the United States, particularly when a given witness resides outside the United States and cannot or does not wish to travel to the United States. In IPR...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Counsel May Confer with a Witness Between Cross-Examination and Re-Cross, but the Witness Might Be Re-Crossed on the Substance of...

McDermott Will & Emery on

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co. - In an order regarding allowable communications between counsel and witness, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) held that counsel may confer with a witness between the end...more

25 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide