Seagate Tech. (US) Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Enova Tech.
Corp.
Citing both substantive and procedural reasons, the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or
Board) ruled that a party was not entitled to present observations
concerning the cross-examination of its own witness and that Fed.
R. Evid. 106 does not provide a basis for such a submission.
Seagate Tech. (US) Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Enova Tech.
Corp., IPR2014–01178 (PTAB, Oct. 28, 2015) (Goodson,
ALJ).
The patent owner tried to submit "observations" on the
cross-examination of its own witness. More specifically, the patent
owner filed a motion to present observation commenting on the
cross-examination of its own expert, apparently frustrated by the
out-of-context snippets of testimony that the petitioner relied on.
Attempting to provide context around the testimony the petitioner
cited and having no procedural opportunity for a sur-reply, the
patent owner submitted its
