`571-272-7822
`
`
` Paper No. 19
`
`Date Entered: December 29, 2016
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ELEKTA INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. AND VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS
`INTERNATIONAL AG
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00844
`Patent 7,880,154
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before BRIAN J. MCNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
`GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Granting Motion to Submit Supplemental Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00844
`Patent 7,880,154
`
`
`
`
`In a conference call with the parties on October 27, 2016, we
`authorized Elekta Inc. (“Petitioner”) to file a motion to submit supplemental
`information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a). Petitioner filed its Motion (Paper
`12), and Varian Medical Systems, Inc. and Varian Medical Systems
`International AG (“Patent Owner”) filed an authorized Statement Regarding
`Petitioner’s Motion (Paper 16). Petitioner seeks to submit testimony from
`Dr. Verhey and Dr. Otto in an International Trade Commission (“ITC”)
`investigation involving the same parties and patent as this proceeding. Paper
`12, 1.
`Dr. Verhey was Patent Owner’s expert on validity before the ITC, and
`Dr. Otto is the sole inventor of the challenged patent in this case. Id. at 2, 3.
`Petitioner asserts the supplemental information is relevant to a claim for
`which trial has been instituted as required under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)(2),
`because the testimony addresses a prior art reference and claim terms that
`are at issue in this case. Paper 12, 1–4. Petitioner explains that it could not
`have submitted the testimony with its Petition, because the testimony is from
`an ITC hearing that took place more than two months after the Petition was
`filed. Id. at 1. In addition, Petitioner notes there is no burden or prejudice
`to Patent Owner because Patent Owner can address the supplemental
`information in its Patent Owner Response. Id. at 4.
`In its Statement Regarding Petitioner’s Motion, Patent Owner
`explains that it does not oppose Petitioner’s Motion, but reserves the right to
`provide with its Patent Owner Response additional portions of Dr. Otto’s
`and Dr. Verhey’s ITC testimony, as well as any other papers related to the
`same ITC investigation. Paper 16, 2.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00844
`Patent 7,880,154
`
`
`
`
`Based on Petitioner’s representations, and because the motion is
`unopposed, Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information is
`granted.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental
`Information (Paper 12) is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Timothy J. May
`timothy.may@finnegan.com
`
`James R. Barney
`james.barney@finnegan.com
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`josha.goldberg@finnegan.com
`
`Christopher C. Johns
`christopher.johns@finnegan.com
`
`Justin E. Loffredo
`justin.loffredo@finnegan.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael B. Ray
`mray-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`Nirav N. Desai
`ndesai-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
