`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 36
` Entered: June 14, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00981
`Patent 7,092,801
`____________
`
`Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
`TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Granting Request to Submit Supplemental Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00981
`Patent 7,092,801
`
`
`During the hearing in this proceeding on June 11, 2018, the panel
`
`addressed Petitioner’s request for authorization to file a motion to submit
`
`supplemental information pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b). Petitioner
`
`seeks to submit a short excerpt from the deposition of Mr. John Loud, Patent
`
`Owner’s expert. Petitioner argues that although the deposition was taken in
`
`another proceeding, the excerpt is relevant here because Mr. Loud’s
`
`testimony undercuts arguments Patent Owner presented in its Motion to
`
`Exclude. See Paper 28. Petitioner further argues that because the deposition
`
`occurred on June 1, 2018, the supplemental information could not have been
`
`obtained earlier and its consideration in this proceeding is in the interests of
`
`justice. Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request. In Patent Owner’s view,
`
`the deposition testimony is not relevant to this proceeding and its submission
`
`here would raise collateral issues regarding the alleged inconsistency
`
`between Mr. Loud’s testimony in the other proceeding and Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion to Exclude in this proceeding.
`
`Given the narrowness of Petitioner’s request and the advanced stage
`
`of this proceeding, we determine that briefing on the motion to submit
`
`supplemental information is unnecessary. We further determine that
`
`Petitioner has made a sufficient showing that the requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123(b) are satisfied, considering that the deposition occurred on
`
`June 1, 2018 and the burden of reviewing a few pages of testimony from
`
`Mr. Loud is low. See Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, 872 F.3d 1267,
`
`1272–73 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Patent Owner may present its arguments
`
`challenging the relevance of Mr. Loud’s deposition testimony in a brief
`
`responsive paper.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00981
`Patent 7,092,801
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to submit supplemental
`
`information is granted;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall submit the proposed
`
`supplemental information as an exhibit no later than one week from the date
`
`of this Order;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner may submit, along with the
`
`supplemental information, a paper of no more than two pages describing the
`
`relevance of the supplemental information to the issues in this proceeding;
`
`and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may submit, no later than
`
`one week after the filing of the supplemental information, a responsive paper
`
`of no more than two pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00981
`Patent 7,092,801
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Jason A. Engel
`Alan L. Barry
`Roberto Capriotti
`Benjamin E. Weed
`Katherine L. Hoffee
`Ragae Ghabrial
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`
`Jason.Engel.PTAB@klgates.com
`alan.barry@klgates.com
`roberto.capriotti@klgates.com
`benjamin.weed.PTAB@klgates.com
`katy.hoffee.PTAB@klgates.com
`ragae.ghabrial@klgates.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jeffrey D. Sanok
`Vincent J. Galluzzo
`
`CROWELL & MORING LLP
`
`jsanok@crowell.com
`vgalluzzo@crowell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
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
