PTAB Practice Tip: When Must I Request 'Authorization' to File a Motion?

15 January 2014 IP Litigation Current Blog

One of the most common mistakes parties make in the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings is failing to seek Board authorization to file a motion. Many practitioners incorrectly assume that the way to request relief of any sort is to simply file a motion. But what these practitioners fail to realize is that they must first obtain the Board’s permission (authorization) to even file the motion. Moreover, obtaining the Board’s permission to file a motion doesn’t mean that you are automatically entitled to the relief requested; it simply means that the Board will consider your motion (which the Board may ultimately deny on the merits).

General Rule: Prior Authorization Required

The general rule governing prior Board authorization to file a motion states:

Prior authorization. A motion will not be entered without Board authorization.  Authorization may be provided in an order of general applicability or during the proceeding.

37 C.F.R. § 42.20(b).

Exceptions to the Rule

Exceptions to the “prior authorization” rule are scattered throughout the Board Rules and Trial Practice Guide. Unfortunately, the Board has not listed in one place all of the exceptions to § 42.20(b).

Here I present my best attempt at listing all motions and other actions that do *not* require prior Board authorization, based on current written policy. There may be others, but these are the ones expressly mentioned somewhere in the Board Rules or Trial Guide.

  • Motions to exclude evidence. (§ 42.64(c))
  • Requests for rehearing. (§ 42.71(d))
  • Additional discovery, if agreed to between the parties. (Final Rule at 48613)
  • Taking (but not submitting) video-recorded testimony, if agreed to between the parties. (Final Rule at 48613)
  • Taking uncompelled deposition testimony outside the United States, if agreed to between the parties. (Final Rule at 48613)
  • Taking routine discovery within times set in the Scheduling Order. (Trial Guide at 48761)
  • Motions where it is “not practical to seek prior Board authorization,” including motions to seal and motions filed with a petition, such as motions to waive page limits. (Trial Guide at 48762)
  • Observations on cross-examination. (Trial Guide at 48763)
  • First motion to amend patent, but owner is still required to confer with the Board before filing the motion. (Trial Guide at 48766)

Please post a comment or email me in case I missed anything.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Hatch Comments on DNC-Related Construction Projects in Milwaukee
14 June 2019
Milwaukee Business Journal
Bernard Quoted on Debt-Relief Settlement with ITT Tech Lender
14 June 2019
Wall Street Journal
Dodd and Daughter Profiled in Wisconsin Golf
13 June 2019
Wisconsin Golf
Brinckerhoff Comments on SCOTUS Ruling in Patent Case
11 June 2019
Intellectual Property Magazine
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
2019 NDI Executive Exchange
14-15 November 2019
Chicago, IL
Association for Corporate Counsel Annual Meeting 2019
27-30 October 2019
Phoenix, AZ
Foley's Government Contracts Annual Update
16 October 2019
Liviona, MI