Takeaway: Supplemental evidence relates to admissibility of evidence while supplemental information relates to sufficiency of the evidence.

In its Order, the Board granted Petitioner’s request to correct certain exhibits, and authorized Petitioner to file a Motion to Submit Supplemental Information. The Board authorized Petitioner to (1) correct number of certain exhibits due to duplicate numbering by expunging the misnumbered exhibits and resubmitting them; and (2) resubmit one of the exhibits to separate the article from the certification.

Petitioner also requested authorization under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123 to file a motion to submit supplemental information within 30 days of the institution date that consists of declarations and other evidence relating to the publication date of one of the prior art references. Petitioner indicated that it had timely served this information on Patent Owner in response to Patent Owner’s objections. The Board emphasized the distinction between supplemental evidence under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 which relates to admissibility of evidence and supplemental information under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123 which relates to the sufficiency (or weight) of the evidence. The Board then authorized Petitioner to file the motion and authorized Patent Owner to submit an opposition and Petitioner to submit a reply.

Valeo North America, Inc.; Valeo S.A.; Valeo GmbH; Valeo Schalter und Sensoren Gmbh; and Connaught Electronics Ltd. v. Magna Electronics, Inc., IPR2014-01203, IPR2014-01204
Paper 15: Order on Conduct of the Proceeding
Dated: March 4, 2015
Patents: 7,859,565 B2 and 8,386,114 B2
Before: Jameson Lee, Phillip J. Kauffman, and Matthew R. Clements
Written by: Clements