`Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 3, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`AKER BIOMARINE AS and
`ENZYMOTEC LTD. and
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`NEPTUNE TECHNOLOGIES AND BIORESSOURCES INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-000031
`Patent 8,278,351 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before LORA M. GREEN, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, and
`SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`GREEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`A conference call was held on Tuesday, August 27, 2014, among
`Amanda Hollis, representing Petitioner, Aker Biomarine AS (“Aker”);
`Elizabeth Holland, representing Petitioner, Enzymotec LTD (“Enzymotec”)
`Laura Cunningham, representing Patent Owner, Neptune Technologies and
`
`1 Case IPR2013-00556 has been joined with this proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351 B2
`
`Bioressources Inc. (“Neptune”); and Judges Green, Bonilla, and Snedden. A court
`reporter was present on the call, and a transcript of the call will be filed by Patent
`Owner in due course.2 Aker requested the call to request authorization to file a
`motion for additional discovery of identified documents.
`
`According to Aker, the documents demonstrate inconsistent positions that
`have been taken by Neptune, or are, at a minimum, relevant to the issues in this
`inter partes review. Aker contended that documents were all produced during an
`ITC proceeding involving the ’351 patent, but that Neptune objects to their
`production in the instant proceeding as they contain Neptune’s confidential
`information. Aker argued that the presence of confidential information should not
`prevent Neptune’s production in this proceeding, as Neptune and Aker have agreed
`to a modified protective order, and Neptune has filed a motion for its entry. Paper
`60.
`Neptune responded that the material relates to its business confidential
`
`information, and protective orders in PTAB proceedings differ from those in ITC
`proceedings, as the Board may declassify information filed under seal if it is used
`in the final decision. Neptune also disagreed as to the relevance of the documents
`to the instant proceeding.
`
`Because of the complexity of the issues involved, we authorized Aker to file
`a motion requesting additional discovery, to be no more than 15 pages, and also
`authorized Neptune to file an opposition of no more than 7 pages. We directed
`Aker’s attention to Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Patent of Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case
`IPR2012-00001 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (Paper No. 26) slip. op. at 6-7, which notes
`
`
`2 This order summarizes the statements made during the conference call. A more
`detailed record may be found in the transcript.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351 B2
`
`that the request is to be based on more than a mere possibility of finding something
`useful. Aker should direct us to evidence tending to show beyond speculation that
`in fact something useful will be uncovered. We further noted that Garmin
`distinguishes between “useful” and “relevant” or “admissible,” where “useful”
`means “favorable in substantive value to a contention of the party moving for
`discovery.” Id. at 7.
`
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that Aker is authorized to file a motion requesting additional
`discovery. The motion is to be no more than 15 pages, and is due Thursday,
`September 4, 2014;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Neptune is authorized is allowed to file an
`opposition to Aker’s motion for additional discovery. The opposition is to be no
`more than 7 pages, and is due Thursday, September 11, 2014.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00003
`Patent 8,278,351 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`John Jones
`jmjones@casimirjones.com
`
`Amanda Hollis
`amanda.hollis@kirkland.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`J. Dean Farmer
`dfarmer@cooley.com
`
`Jonathan G. Graves
`IPR2014-00003@cooley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`