The admissibility of evidence is an important consideration for
many PTAB proceedings. The procedures for objecting to and
admitting evidence can be nuanced and, as often is the case with
the PTAB, the devil is in the details. Panels are also quick to
point out that non-precedential decisions from other panels have no
binding effect such that different panels may operate under
slightly different procedural rules. One panel clarified the
process for handling evidentiary objections to shed some light on
the correct manner of curing objections or challenging the
admissibility of evidence.
The case of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd.
v. Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1, Case IPR2016-01249 and
IPR2016-01264 (January 20, 2017 Order) clarified the process for
objecting to evidence and the manner of curing such objections.
Taiwan Semiconductor objected to evidence filed by Godo Kaisha, and
Godo Kaisha filed supplemental evidence in an attempt to cure the
objection.
