ARTICLE
12 December 2019

ALJ Cites To Ground Rules And Requires Parties To Focus Case Theories

JD
Jones Day

Contributor

Jones Day is a global law firm with more than 2,500 lawyers across five continents. The Firm is distinguished by a singular tradition of client service; the mutual commitment to, and the seamless collaboration of, a true partnership; formidable legal talent across multiple disciplines and jurisdictions; and shared professional values that focus on client needs.
In a recently issued order, ALJ McNamara relied on her Ground Rules to require the parties to limit their cases and focus on their best theories.
United States Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In a recently issued order, ALJ McNamara relied on her Ground Rules to require the parties to limit their cases and focus on their best theories. Certain Rotating 3-D Lidar Devices, Components Thereof and Sensing Systems Containing the Same, 337-TA-1173, Order 9 (November 14, 2019). Complainant was required to limit the number of asserted claims and Respondent was required to limit the number of prior art references relied upon to support their invalidity defense.

The Order was in response to Respondents Notice of Prior Art filed a day earlier. Respondents Notice of Prior Art was "30 pages long and disclosed hundreds of potential prior art references." In response, ALJ McNamara indicated that the Notice failed to comply with Ground Rule 4 which states "[n]otices of prior art with excessive disclosures have been stricken in the past on the basis that the thwart the purpose of this Ground Rule 4." ALJ McNamara commented that the Complainant had asserted a single patent and that the disclosure exemplified a lack of focus and excess. She instructed Respondents to limit the total number to just 12 prior art references.

ALJ McNamara went on to indicate that Complainants assertion of 24 claims, including 22 dependent claims, from the sole asserted patent was also an example of lack of focus and excess. She commented that Complainant "should know its strongest claims from its own pre-investigation due diligence" and instructed Complainants to reduce the number of asserted claims. While she did not provide a maximum number, she did indicate that a recommended number would be no more than 10-12 claims.

Takeaway

We have previously written about the importance of complying with the ALJ's ground rules ( here) and this order is an example of how ALJs can use their ground rules to manage their cases. In this investigation, it seems the relative simplicity of the technical aspects of the patent and the compressed ITC timeline, led ALJ McNamara to conclude a more focused approach was appropriate.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More