PTAB Authorizes Patent Owner to Seek Third­-Party Subpoena in District Court

Jun 2, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

Following institution of the IPR, the patent owner timely served objections challenging the publication date of one of the prior art references relied upon by the petitioner. In response, the petitioner served on the patent owner supplemental evidence, including the declaration of a third­party witness with purported knowledge regarding the publication date of the prior art reference in question. The petitioner also obtained permission from the board to file its supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b). Subsequently, the patent owner requested that, as matter of fundamental fairness and due process, the board either expunge the evidence from the record or permit the patent owner—pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a)—to seek the deposition of the third­party declarant.

Having considered the parties positions, the board authorized the patent owner to apply for a subpoena under 35 U.S.C. § 24 from the district court where the testimony of the third­party witness is to be taken. The Board limited the scope of the deposition to the first public availability of the reference in question. The board also imposed strict time limits on the deposition—one­hour of cross­examination by the patent owner, 15 minutes of redirect examination by the petitioner, 30 minutes of redirect examination by the third party, and no more than 30 minutes of re­cross­examination by the patent owner.

IBM, Corp. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC, IPR2014­01385, Paper No. 26 (PTAB May 27, 2015).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.