"But going through the whole process of IPR, it does not make sense to amend any patent claims prior to knowing the 3-members IPR Board/Judges ideas/tendencies. The patent owner must know all objections/issues toward any particular patent claims, before a fruitful proposal to change by the patent owner could be offered to the IPR Board."
==============================
SCHEDULING ORDER
DUE DATE APPENDIX
INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL .............................................. Upon Request
DUE DATE 1 ......................................................................... March 23, 2016
Patent owner’s response to the petition (completed)
Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent (did not motion to amend)
DUE DATE 2 ............................................................................ June 23, 2016...(new date July 22nd)
Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend (stricken)
DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................. July 25, 2016
Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend (stricken)
DUE DATE 4 ........................................................................ August 15, 2016
Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
Motion to exclude evidence
Request for oral argument
DUE DATE 5 ........................................................................ August 29, 2016
Response to observation
Opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 6 .................................................................... September 6, 2016
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 7 .................................................................. September 20, 2016
Oral argument (if requested)
==========================
Those thoughts are not on the agenda....unfair date to consider amendments.
"The Court seemed to send a bit of a caution to the board, though, noting that the statute in fact permits amendments during inter partes review, and suggesting that courts might be able to review decisions refusing to permit an amendment as arbitrary or capricious."
Note the key phrase: "during inter partes review".
Yeah, I noted, and the board allowed for amendement....
doni
