{"id":1978,"date":"2018-03-19T10:27:14","date_gmt":"2018-03-19T14:27:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1978"},"modified":"2018-03-25T10:47:12","modified_gmt":"2018-03-25T14:47:12","slug":"presenting-arguments-too-late-is-well-too-late","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1978","title":{"rendered":"Presenting IPR Arguments Too Late is . . . Well Too Late"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC<\/a>, [2017-1101](March\u00a019, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision on remand not to consider Dell’s late-presented arguments, rather than giving Acceleron the opportunity to address them.<\/p>\n

In the previous appearance of this IPR before the Federal Circuit, Acceleron persuaded the Federal Circuit that the Board had improperly relied upon late-presented arguments by Dell made for the first time during the oral argument to which Acceleron did not have the opportunity to respond.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit remanded the case, and on remand the the Board decided the proper course was to ignore the arguments made by Dell because they were no and not responsive to Acceleron’s arguments.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit said that\u00a0the Board was obligated to dismiss Dell\u2019s
\nuntimely argument given that the untimely argument in\u00a0this case was raised for the first time during oral argument.\u00a0\u00a0Dell argued that ignoring evidence of unpatentability was against public policy because it will not improve\u00a0patent quality, but the Federal Circuit found that\u00a0due process and preserving the Board\u2019s discretion outweigh\u00a0any negative effects of not invalidating a patent\u00a0claim, especially since other parties remained free to challenge the validity of the claims.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, [2017-1101](March\u00a019, 2018), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision on remand not to consider Dell’s late-presented arguments, rather than giving Acceleron the opportunity to address them. In the previous appearance of this IPR before … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1978","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-inter-partes-review"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1978","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1978"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1978\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1981,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1978\/revisions\/1981"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1978"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1978"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1978"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}