`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 25
`Date: May 19, 2023
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EXTRACTIONTEK SALES LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GENE POOL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2022-00832 (Patent 9,145,532 B2)
`IPR2022-01011 (Patent 9,144,751 B2)1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, CYNTHIA M. HARDMAN, and
`JAMIE T. WISZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
`HARDMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Dismissing as Moot Petitioner’s Motion
`to Submit Supplemental Information
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses the same issues in each of the above-listed
`proceedings. We issue one Order to be filed in each proceeding. The parties
`are not authorized to use this heading style in any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00832 (Patent 9,145,532 B2)
`IPR2022-01011 (Patent 9,144,751 B2)
`
`
`On May 2, 2023, Petitioner filed an authorized, unopposed motion to
`submit as supplemental information excerpts of a deposition transcript of
`Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Gregory Miller, taken in a related proceeding
`(IPR2022-00625). See IPR2022-00832, Paper 24 (“Mot.”), at 1. 2 Petitioner
`attached the transcript excerpts as Exhibit A to its motion.
`We dismiss the motion as moot because the transcript excerpts
`Petitioner seeks to submit as supplemental information are already of record.
`Specifically, on April 18, 2023, Petitioner filed the exact same transcript
`excerpts in support of its Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. See Exhibit
`1021.
`To the extent Petitioner is asking the Board to address the propriety of
`Petitioner using in the instant proceeding a deposition transcript taken in a
`related proceeding, the Board declines to do so in the context of this motion.
`See Mot. 1–2 (discussing case law addressing propriety of using a deposition
`transcript in one proceeding that was taken in a co-pending proceeding),
`2 (arguing that “requiring Petitioner to conduct separate depositions to elicit
`the same information from the same witness would place an undue financial
`burden on both parties”). Typically, a motion to submit as supplemental
`information is used to submit evidence “separate and apart from any brief.”
`See IPR2018-01499, Paper 19, at 3. Here, the evidence in question is
`already of record, and was submitted together with Petitioner’s Reply brief.
`We note that Petitioner’s cited case law, in contrast, considered the propriety
`of using the transcript in the context of a motion to exclude. See IPR2016-
`
`
`2 For convenience we cite only to the record in IPR2022-00832. Petitioner
`filed a substantively similar motion in IPR2022-01011. See IPR2022-
`01011, Paper 26 (Mot.).
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00832 (Patent 9,145,532 B2)
`IPR2022-01011 (Patent 9,144,751 B2)
`
`01245, Paper 56, at 97–100. The current record does not reflect any
`objections to or motion to exclude the transcript excerpts. See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64.
`
`ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to submit supplemental
`information is dismissed.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00832 (Patent 9,145,532 B2)
`IPR2022-01011 (Patent 9,144,751 B2)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Clement Hayes
`Mark Emde
`BLOCK45 LEGAL
`clement@block45legal.com
`mark.emde@block45legal.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Ryan R. Owens
`SPEARHEAD LEGAL LLP
`ryan.owens@spearheadlegal.com
`
`Daniel C. Pierron
`WIDERMAN MALEK, PL
`dpierron@uslegalteam.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
