No Right to Cross-Examine Declarant from Another Proceeding

Posted on by

In Organik Kimya San. ve Tic. A.S. v. Rohm And Haas Company, IPR2014-00185, Paper 42 (December 18, 2014), the Patent Owner was denied permission to file a motion to compel the deposition of the declarant in a declaration submitted by the Petitioner in opposition to the Motion to Amend.  The Declaration was from a separate ITC proceeding between the parties, so the Board agreed that the deposition was not Routine Discovery under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii).  However, the Board cautioned petitioner that the Declaration “may be entitled to little or no weight, as it has not been subject to cross-examination as it pertains to the instant proceeding.”  The Board then sent the parties off to work things out, instructing the Patent Owner to renew the motion if agreement is not reached.

.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized 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.