Motions to Strike Aren’t Necessary (or Are They)?

Posted on by

In Apple Inc. v. SightSound Technologies LLC, CBM2013-00023, Paper 61 (April 2, 2014) the Board denied patent owner’s request for permission to file a motio to strike the Petitioner’s reply for new arguments not responsive to the arguments the patent owner made in its response, and to strike portions of Petitioner’s declaration for improperly containing legal argument.  In both instances, the Board said that in most cases it is capable of identifying and exclusing improper arguments and testimony.  However, merely asking for permision probably sensitized the Board to the issue.

 

This entry was posted in Covered Business Methods by Bryan Wheelock. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bryan Wheelock

Education J.D., Washington University in St. Louis B.S.E. in Mechanical Engineering, Duke University Bryan Wheelock's practice includes preparation and prosecution of patent and trademark applications and drafting of intellectual property agreements, including non-compete agreements. He has brought and defended lawsuits in federal and state courts relating to intellectual property and has participated in seizures of counterfeit and infringing goods. Bryan prepares and prosecutes U.S. and foreign patent applications for medical devices, mechanical and electromechanical devices, manufacturing machinery and processes, metal alloys and other materials. He also does a substantial amount of patentability searching, trademark availability searching and patent and trademark infringement studies. In addition to his practice at Harness Dickey, Bryan is an Adjunct Professor at Washington University School of Law and Washington University School of Engineering.