Takeaway: The Board considers whether additional information would lead to a just, speedy, and inexpensive proceeding when deciding a motion to submit supplemental information.
In its Order, the Board denied a request by the Petitioner to file a motion to submit supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.223(c). In particular, the Petitioner sought to submit challenges to dependent claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,958,024 in CBM2013-00053 and 7,908,304 in CBM2013-00054, which were not involved in either case. The Board held that allowing the additional challenges would not lead to a just, speedy, and inexpensive proceeding because it would require briefing by all parties as well as additional cross-examination of witnesses.
The Board also denied the Petitioner’s request to file a motion to expedite the schedule in all three cases. The Petitioner sought to expedite all of the due dates because the sole issue for each trial was 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Board was not persuaded, and stated that it would consider expediting due dates 4-7 if the parties would agree to expedite the schedule for due dates 1-3.
Callidus Software Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc., CBM2013-00052, 53, and 54
Paper 26: Order on Conduct of the Proceedings
Dated: March 28, 2014
Patents: 7,904,326 B2; 7,958,024 B2; and 7,908,304 B2
Before: Howard B. Blankenship, Sally C. Medley, and Kevin F. Turner
Written by: Medley