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.