Replies Must only Reply

Posted on by

In Veeam Software Corporation v. Symantec Corporation, IPR2013-00141. Paper 35 (April 7, 2014), the petitioner complained that the patent owner’s repies to petioner;s opposition to the motion to amend because they exceeded the scope of the opposition.  The Board reminded the parties:

The scope of a reply is limited. A reply may only respond to arguments raised in a corresponding opposition. 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b). A reply is not an opportunity to raise new issues or provide additional evidence that could reasonably have been provided in the motion. A reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence will not be considered and may be returned.

The board expunged the replies, but did give the patent owner five days to try again.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized 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.