By Douglas A. Robinson, Principal
Practitioners who are used to district court litigation may be surprised—and tripped up—by the rules for objecting to evidence in IPRs, which differ significantly from the approach used in litigation. The Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2014-01204 (Valeo v. Magna Elecs.) serves as a good case study of the IPR rules’ strict process for evidentiary objections.
By way of background, possibly the biggest difference between evidentiary objections in IPRs and litigation is the IPR rules require objections to be filed with the Board within ten business days after the evidence is submitted. Failure to object within that time waives the objections, and precludes a later motion to exclude the evidence. After evidentiary objections are served, the proponent of the evidence can, within 10 business days, serve “supplemental evidence” in an effort to overcome the objection. That supplemental evidence is not filed as a matter of course without the Board’s approval; rather, its use is generally limited to filing in opposition to a motion to exclude.
The Board often requires strict compliance with this procedure, and will strike objections if they do not comply, as illustrated in the Valeo case. There, the Decision to Institute was entered on January 28, 2015. That triggered the 10-day deadline for Patent Owner to object to the evidence in the Petition, and Patent Owner timely filed its objections on Feb. 11. In turn, Petitioner timely served supplemental evidence on Feb. 25. The next day, Petitioner properly sought permission from the Board to file a motion to file the supplemental evidence as “supplemental information.” On March 4, the Board granted Petitioner permission to file its motion. The same day, Patent Owner objected to the supplemental evidence.
On April 10, the Board granted Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information. Thus, by operation of the rules, the “supplemental evidence” became evidence on that day. Patent Owner never renewed its objection. As a result, the Board ruled that Patent Owner waived its objections to the supplemental information, despite having earlier objected. The earlier objections were ineffective, according to the Board, because the “rules provide for objections to evidence, but do not provide for objections to supplemental evidence.”
Regarding the substance of admissibility issues, the Federal Rules of Evidence apply to IPRs. The Valeo case addresses a variety of other evidentiary objections that were effectively lodged, and a few particular points from the decision provide a window into how many PTAB judges approach evidentiary issues:
- Arguments about admissibility should not be included in Patent Owner’s Response; such arguments should only be raised in a motion to exclude. (See FWD at 14-15);
- On the flip side of that same coin, arguments about sufficiency of the evidence should be presented in the Patent Owner’s Response, not in a motion to exclude under the guise of an objection on relevance grounds. (See FWD at 16);
- Hearsay objections are of very limited utility with respect to expert declarations, because the Board does not consider declarations submitted as a part of the IPR to be “out of court statements,” as the declarants may be cross-examined (see FWD at 17);
- Objections should be precise and comprehensive. For example, if an objection does not include reference to Rule 403, then the Board may not later allow an argument based on FRE 403. (See FWD at 20);
- Be sure to object to the right document. For example, an FRE 901 objection should be directed to the underlying document, not a declaration that tries to authenticate the underlying document. Otherwise, the Board may decline to consider the issue (see FWD at 21).
In the Valeo IPR, as usually happens in IPRs, the motion to exclude was denied.