Motion to Strike vs. Motion to Exclude

In Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Wildcat Licensing WI, LLC, IPR2014-00304, Paper 23, IPR2014-00305, Paper 24 (November 28, 2014), the Board denied petitioner leave to file a motion to strike exhibits from the patent owners response because the exhibits contained attorney argument, and thus were an attempt to avoid the page limit.  Because all of the information in the Exhibit appeared elsewhere in patentees papers, and petitioner timely served objections in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(a)(1), preserving petitioner’s ability to file a motion to exclude, the Board saw no reason to allow a motion to strike the exhibit.

 

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.