{"id":1827,"date":"2014-11-28T21:18:03","date_gmt":"2014-11-29T02:18:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=1827"},"modified":"2014-11-29T21:54:02","modified_gmt":"2014-11-30T02:54:02","slug":"supplemental-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/?p=1827","title":{"rendered":"Supplemental Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC<\/em>, IPR2014-00524, Paper 30 (November 28, 2014), the\u00a0Board denied petitioner’s motion\u00a0to file as supplemental information under\u00a037 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.123(a) declarations used in two subsequently filed\u00a0inter partes<\/em> reviews by third parties.<\/p>\n

The Board\u00a0found that petitioner met the criteria set forth in \u00a742.123(a), noting that petitioner filed its request for authorization to file a Motion to Submit Supplemental Evidence within one month of the date of institution, and the patent owner did not dispute that the\u00a0declarations\u00a0are relevant to a claim for which the trial has been instituted.\u00a0 However, the Board said that meeting \u00a742.123(a) does not mean that the Board will automatically grant that motion, and allow submission of the supplemental information at issue, citing Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.<\/em>, IPR2013-00106,\u00a0(August 5, 2013);\u00a0ZTE Corp. v. Contentguard Holdings Inc.<\/em>,\u00a0IPR2013-00139,\u00a0(July 30, 2013); Norman Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Andrew J. Tosti Testamentary Trust<\/em>, Case IPR2014-00283, slip op. at 5 (PTAB Sept. 29, 2014).<\/p>\n

The Board has allowed submission of supplemental information\u00a0where the information was alleged to confirm the public accessibility of originally cited prior art, but did not change the grounds of unpatentability authorized in the proceeding, and did not change the evidence initially presented in the petition to support those grounds. Palo Alto v. Juniper<\/em>, IPR2013-00369, (February 5, 2014).\u00a0 However, the Board has denied motions to supplement where the petitioner sought to use the supplemental information to bolster the challenges presented in the petition.\u00a0 ZTE v. Contentguard Holdings<\/em>, IPR2013-00139,\u00a0(July 30, 2013)(denying entry of supplemental information where petitioner submitted information in response to claim construction by Board in institution decision);\u00a0Redline Detection v. Star Envirotech<\/em>, IPR2013-00106,\u00a0(August 5, 2013) (“We do not read 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.123 as permitting a petitioner to wait for the Board to narrow the grounds submitted in the petition in order to create a more focused declaration at less expense that will bolster its position in the chosen grounds.”).<\/p>\n

Denying entry of supplemental information which effectively changes the evidence originally relied upon in a petition is in accord with the statutory requirement that a petition must identify, with particularity, the evidence supporting the challenge to each claim.\u00a0 \u00a0The Board found that admitting the declarations would change the evidence relied upon in\u00a0the petition, and therefore denied the motion to submit supplemental information.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-00524, Paper 30 (November 28, 2014), the\u00a0Board denied petitioner’s motion\u00a0to file as supplemental information under\u00a037 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.123(a) declarations used in two subsequently filed\u00a0inter partes reviews by third parties. The Board\u00a0found that petitioner … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1827","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ipr"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4ZIpB-tt","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1827","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1827"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1827\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1828,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1827\/revisions\/1828"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1827"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1827"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aia.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1827"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}