Resources

PTAB Tracker

June 24, 2021

Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Tech., LLC, Case IPR2018-00816, Paper 19

In this case, petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying Institution, along with three new exhibits.  (See Paper 17.)  Petitioner argued that the Board overlooked or misunderstood evidence related to the proper construction of a disputed claim term, and offered further support for its construction via the new exhibits, which showed contradictory positions by patent owner in the parallel litigation.  (See id. at 8-10.)

The Board expunged the exhibits.  (Paper 19 at 3-4.)  In reaching this decision, the Board first noted that the rule governing rehearing requests, 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), did not address the submission of new evidence with the request.  The Board then turned to the Trial Practice Guide, which states that in the context of rehearing requests, “[e]vidence not already of record at the time of the decision will not be admitted absent a showing of good cause.”  77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 at 48,768.

 

Relying on the above standard, the Board stated that “[i]deally, a party seeking to admit new evidence with a rehearing request would request a conference call with the Board prior to filing such a request so that it could argue ‘good cause’ exists for admitting the new evidence.  Alternatively, a party may argue ‘good cause’ exists in the rehearing request itself.”  (Paper 19 at 4.)  Petitioner had done neither.  The Board thus found that no showing for “good cause” had been made, and exercised its authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a) to expunge the exhibits.  (Id.)

Takeaways

  1. By designating this opinion as precedential, the PTAB has made clear that it expects a showing of “good cause” for any new evidence raised in a request for rehearing.
  2. Though the Board noted that “good cause” could be argued in the request for rehearing itself, best practice to maximize the likely slim odds of the Board allowing the new evidence is to request a conference call with the Board.  This will allow for a more nuanced and interactive discussion of the relevance of the new evidence and why it was not submitted earlier in the proceeding.

Author

Brian G. Strand | Principal | Houston

Brian Strand is a principal in the Houston office of Fish & Richardson P.C. whose practice focuses on complex patent litigation and appeals. At all stages of a case, Brian focuses both on preparing the case for trial (and, if necessary, appeal) and on identifying and capitalizing on opportunities for early resolution through dispositive motions or advantageous settlements.... Read More

Fill out the form below to receive our monthly newsletter and updates on your selected areas of interest. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of the email.

  • Fish & Richardson P.C. is committed to protecting and respecting your privacy, and we’ll only use your personal information to administer your account and to provide the services you requested from us. From time to time, we would like to contact you about our services, as well as other content that may be of interest to you. If you consent to us contacting you for this purpose, please tick below.
  • In order to provide you the content requested, we need to store and process your personal data. If you consent to us storing your personal data for this purpose, please tick the checkbox below.
  • You can unsubscribe from these communications at any time. This can be done by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of marketing emails you receive from us, or by emailing info@fr.com stating that you would like to be unsubscribed.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.