`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
