`
`571-272-7822
`Date Entered: August 1, 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, 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 25, 2014, the University requested leave to file an
`
`opposition to Cyanotech’s motion to submit supplemental information. The
`
`University does not oppose entry of the supplemental information, but it argues
`
`that Cyanotech’s motion presents improper characterization or argument about the
`
`supplemental information.
`
`Argument in a motion for late submission of supplemental information is
`
`limited to explaining why the moving party should prevail, such as by explaining
`
`how the information is relevant to a claim for which trial was instituted, why the
`
`moving party is entitled to the relief requested, why the information reasonably
`
`could not have been obtained earlier, and why consideration of the information is
`
`in the interests of justice. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.123(a)-(b). Cyanotech’s
`
`argument will be considered only to the extent that it addresses the issue of why it
`
`should prevail on the motion.
`
`Accordingly it is
`
`ORDERED that the University is authorized to file an opposition to
`
`Cyanotech’s motion to submit supplemental information (Paper 60); and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the opposition may be no more than two pages
`
`long, must be submitted by August 6, 2014, and is limited to identifying the
`
`portions of Cyanotech’s motion that are not directed to the issue of why Cyanotech
`
`should prevail on the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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: Russell Rigby [mailto:RRigby@carlsoncaspers.com]
`Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 4:00 PM
`To: Trials
`Cc: jar@nixonvan.com; George Darby (darbypatent@teleport-asia.com) (darbypatent@teleport-
`asia.com); Mark Schuman; Todd Werner; Peter Kohlhepp
`Subject: Case No. IPR2013-00401: Request for Response to Petitioner's Motion (Paper 60)
`
`
`Dear PTAB,
`
`
`Patent Owner is in receipt of Petitioner’s “Motion to Submit Supplemental Information” (Paper No.
`60). During the call earlier this week on which Petitioner's Motion was authorized, the panel made clear
`that the Motion should contain the three agreed-upon paragraphs from Dr. Kaushal’s declaration, but
`should not contain further characterization or argument about those paragraphs. Petitioner ignored
`that instruction. The Motion contains characterizations and arguments that ignore the context of the
`statements at issue. Fairness requires that Patent Owner be given an opportunity to respond.
`
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests leave to file a two-page response to Petitioner’s
`Motion. Patent Owner can submit the response the day after leave is given to file it.
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`
`
`Russell J. Rigby
`direct 612.436.9611
`fax 612.436.9605
`225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`carlsoncaspers.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This message may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copying,
`distribution or use of its contents is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please destroy it and notify us
`immediately by email or at 612.436.9600.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`