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

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

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

© 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.