In the latest installment of Knobbe Martens’ Law360 series on noteworthy Federal Circuit opinions, partners Karen Cassidy Selvaggio and Paul Stewart write about a recent decision in Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google LLC, a case where the Federal Circuit confirmed that the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) does not need to consider evidence submitted via incorporation by reference and not cited with particularity.
The authors first examine the case and share that the outcome in Parus is “consistent with decisions, procedures and practices of federal courts throughout the country emphasizing the importance of citing evidence and case law with particularity.” These cases all make clear that judges are not like “pigs” hunting for “truffles” in the factual record without guidance from the parties.
On the importance of the Federal Circuit’s decision, Ms. Cassidy Selvaggio and Mr. Stewart said, “[t]he Parus decision, particularly its emphasis regarding the limitations of what a judge is required to consider, is an important reminder to litigators of all types of the importance of organized briefs that cite both evidence and law with particularity.” They add, “[a]ccordingly, litigators should resist the temptation to bypass page limits by incorporating lengthy declarations or shortcut brief writing with broad citations to the record. Rather, briefs should introduce evidence with detailed explanations as to its relevance and with pin cites directing the judge to the relevant portions of the record.”
