`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: July 21, 2014
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`CYANOTECH CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401 and IPR2013-00404 (consolidated)
`
`Patent 5,527,533
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before SCOTT E. KAMHOLZ, SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, and
`GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`KAMHOLZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`By email dated July 18, 2014, Cyanotech requested a conference call to seek
`
`authorization to file a motion to submit supplemental information under 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123(b). A conference call was held on July 21, 2014.
`
`Cyanotech seeks to submit paragraph 179 from the Expert report of the
`
`University’s expert, Dr. Kaushal, from a related district court litigation. Cyanotech
`
`states that it seeks to submit this information in order to impeach Dr. Kaushal’s
`
`testimony in this proceeding.
`
`The University argues that Cyanotech is taking paragraph 179 out of context
`
`and requests that, if paragraph 179 is submitted, paragraphs 177 and 178 be
`
`submitted as well. Cyanotech does not object.
`
`Upon consideration, we authorize Cyanotech’s request. Cyanotech is
`
`reminded that it must, in its motion, show that it is entitled to the relief requested,
`
`that the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained earlier,
`
`and that consideration of the information would be in the interests of justice. See
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c); 42.123(b).
`
`Accordingly it is
`
`ORDERED that Cyanotech is authorized to file a motion to submit
`
`supplemental information;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the information sought to be submitted shall
`
`consist of paragraphs 177, 178, and 179 of Dr. Kaushal’s district court expert
`
`report, no more and no less;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the motion is limited to three pages and must be
`
`submitted by July 25, 2014; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no opposition is authorized at this time.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`For PETITIONER:
`
`Joseph A. Rhoa
`NIXON & VANDERHYE P.C.
`
`George E. Darby
`PARADISE PATENT SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`
`Mark D. Schuman
`Iain A. McIntyre
`CARLSON CASPERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Cases IPR2013-00401, -00404
`Patent 5,527,533
`
`
`______________________________________________________________
`From: George E. Darby [mailto:darbypatent@teleport-asia.com]
`Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 7:14 AM
`To: 'trials@uspto.gov'
`Cc: Joseph A. Rhoa; 'Bob Rowan'; 'Todd Werner'; 'Peter Kohlhepp'; 'Bobby Foster';
`'Mschuman@carlsoncaspers.com'; 'imcintyre@carlsoncaspers.com'; 'Russell Rigby';
`gdarby@kanikapilarecords.com
`Subject: IPR2013-00401. Req, for Conf. Call
`
`
`Re: IPR2013-00401
`
`
`Dear Patent Trials and Appeal Board:
`
`
`Petitioner hereby requests a brief telephone conference with the Board to request permission to
`submit paragraph 179 of Dr. Kaushal’s expert report in the MDFla litigation as Supplementary
`Evidence in the above IPR.
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner and for Petitioner are available 21-24 July (M-W), starting at 11 a.m.
`or later, EDT.
`
`
`Thank you,
`G. Darby
`Back-up Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`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
