pointless imposition on the court's time. A brief must make all arguments accessible to
the judges, rather than ask them to play archaeologist with the record.”).
LeVeen also discusses why it is improper for a party to point to a
lengthy exhibit without identifying a specific portion of the exhibit relied upon. LeVeen
states at 57 USPQ at 1413:
We decline to search the prior art to see if somehow it might support
Edwards’ anticipation theory. Compare Clintec Nutrition Co. v. Baxa Corp., 44
USPQ2d 1719, 1723 n.16 (N.D. Ill. 1997), which notes that where a party points
the court to multipage exhibits without citing a specific portion or page, the court
will not pour over the documents to extract the relevant information, citing United
States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir. 1991) (judges do not hunt for
truffles buried in briefs); Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. Palm Press, Inc., 164 F.3d
110, 111-12, 49 USPQ2d 1377, 1378-79 (2d Cir. 1999) (“Appellant's Brief is at
best an invitation to the court to scour the record, research any legal theory that
comes to mind, and serve generally as an advocate for appellant. We decline the
invitation. Although the issues raised are complex, appellant's main Brief is only
nine pages long and does not cite a single statute or court decision related to
copyright. Nor does it present a coherent legal theory, even one unsupported by
citation to authority that would sustain the complaint.”); Winner International
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1351, 53 USPQ2d 1580, 1589 (Fed. Cir.
2000) (We agree with Winner that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
allowing allegedly late-disclosed witnesses to testify. Such witnesses were never
even identified by Wang in his opening brief * * *. Under such circumstances, we
will not search the record on the chance of discovering which witnesses Wang
was complaining of and then determine whether the district court abused its
discretion. Thus, whichever witnesses Wang was alluding to, admission of their
testimony cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion based on the vague
arguments made by Wang on appeal).
In deciding the motions before us, we will not consider material that a party attempts to
incorporate by reference for the reasons set forth in LeVeen. Therefore, in deciding a particular
motion before us, we will not look to another motion to make a party’s case for it even if the
party directs us to the other motion. For example, in its preliminary motion 5, Glaxo states that
“[t]he remaining claims of the ‘403, ‘404 and ‘405 patents should not correspond to Proposed
Count 2 for the reasons set forth in GWI Preliminary Motions 6-9”. We have not considered the
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007