Tag Archives: Evidence

To Antedate, Must an Inventor Prove “Continuous Reasonable Diligence” or “Reasonably Continuous Diligence”?

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Trial Procedures
A split panel of the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB applied a standard that was too exacting when it required an inventor to prove the “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence” to antedate a prior art reference. Rather, the PTAB should have applied the rule of reason to determine if the inventor proved that there … Continue Reading

House of Cards: Weak Evidentiary Support Dooms IPR of Med Device Patent

By Jeremy R. Kriegel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, Sections 102/103
On February 9, 2016, in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc., IPR2015-01660, the PTAB  refused to institute an IPR against US Patent No. 8,257,325, “Venous Access Port with Molded and/or Radiopaque Indicia.”  The challenged claims were directed to a venous access port assembly with a marking to indicate the port is rated for power … Continue Reading

Cross-Pollination of Information From Litigation to IPR Can Lead to Trouble for Parties

thumbnail image of DNA strandBy Katherine L. Neville, Ph.D. on Posted in Biotechnology, Discovery, Inter Partes Review
In a recent order by the magistrate judge in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (NJD, Jan. 22, 2016), defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceuticals were reprimanded and threatened with sanctions and monetary fines for trying to use confidential information from the litigation to move for additional discovery in a related IPR proceedings.  The judge … Continue Reading

I Object! The PTAB is Leading Practitioners to Inefficient Depositions

By Benjamin T. Horton on Posted in Discovery, Inter Partes Review, Trial Procedures
Recently, the PTAB excluded Patent Owner expert witness testimony because during the expert’s deposition, on redirect, Patent Owner’s counsel asked leading questions.  IPR2014-01146, Paper 36, pg. 6.  The PTAB relied on Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c), and cited to McCormick on Evidence, § 6 (7th ed. 2013), which states “[a] leading question is one that … Continue Reading
LexBlog