`
`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
`
`
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
