Some Observations on Observations

Posted on by

In Hayward Industries, Inc. v. Pentainer Water Pool and Spa, Inc., IPR2013-00285, Paper 31, IPR2013-00287, Paper 31 (July 3, 2014), the Board provided some guidance on observations on cross-examination, answering the question whether a party can file observations on the cross-examination of its own witness. The Board expalined that the party taking the cross-examination files the observations.  Observations on cross-examination are not an opportunity to rehabilitate testimony given by a witness under cross-examination, and the Board cautioned that such observations would not be appropriate, citing CBS Interactive Inc. v. Wireless Science, LLC, IPR2013-00033, Paper 101, 3-5 (discussing the presentation of observations). Clarifying or otherwise rehabilitating testimony should be the subject of redirect of the witness after the cross-examination.

 

This entry was posted in Inter Partes Review 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.