In this Order, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to strike the declaration of Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Hussey. In this regard, Petitioner argued that portions of Mr. Hussey’s declaration were argumentative and that the references to the declaration in Patent Owner’s Response were designed “to circumvent the page limit for Patent Owner responses.” Patent Owner, in response, argued that Mr. Hussey’s declaration includes relevant statements of fact and that the argument presented in Patent Owner’s Response “is sufficient to support its assertions, which are based on facts established by Mr. Hussey’s declaration.”
Although the Board surmised that Patent Owner’s Response, at least in the abstract, appears to improperly circumvent the page limit, the Board nevertheless declined to authorize Petitioner’s requested motion to strike. The Board made its decision on this point primarily for the sake of efficiency. As an alternative, the Board noted that Petitioner may argue in its reply to Patent Owner’s Response that no weight should be given to Patent Owner’s argument. The Board concluded by reminding the parties that the filing of a motion to exclude Mr. Hussey’s testimony would not be appropriate in this particular fact situation.
Fujian Newland Computer Co., Ltd. v. Hand Held Products, Inc., IPR2013-00595
Paper 28: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding
Dated: June 13, 2014
Patent 7,568,628
Before: Kevin F. Turner, Bryan F. Moore, and Patrick M. Boucher
Written by: Boucher