Why Lawyers Can't Ignore eDiscovery
It's Time to Think About Data Mapping Differently
The AI Trust Test in eDiscovery
eDiscovery Tips: Helpful Questions to Ask Your Clients
30-Minute Workshop: Resume Clinic for EDiscovery Project Managers
To Unlock AI’s Power, Think Predictive to Generative
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 15: eDiscovery for Employers with Angela O’Neal, Nextra Solutions Director
Calculating eDiscovery Costs: Tips from Brett Burney
eDiscovery for the Rest of Us: Why Small Firm eDiscovery Matters
The Great Link Debate and the Future of Cloud Collaboration
Why Your eDiscovery Program and Technology Need Scalability
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 237: Listen and Learn -- Discovery (Civ Pro)
#CaseoftheWeek with Kelly Twigger: Latin Markets Brazil, LLC v. McArdle
Podcast - Inteligencia Artificial
LFLM LAW with L.A.W - Discovery for Covid-19 Claims
Chemical Engineering Expert Witness Experience & Discovery – IMS Insights Podcast Episode 48
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: The Mechanics of Multidistrict Litigation: Streamlining Complex Cases
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 204: Listen and Learn -- Scope of Discovery and the Work-Product Privilege
A Look at the Metaverse’s Legal Implications, with Special Guest Samantha Green, Director of Content Marketing, Epiq
Recent Trends in Class-Action Consumer Finance Litigation - The Consumer Finance Podcast
On November 18, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges denied a Patent Owner’s Request for Additional Discovery in Twitter, Inc. v. Palo Alto Research Center Inc., IPR2021-01398. The PTAB found that...more
The PTAB in a recent PGR proceeding: SWM International, LLC et al v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH (PGR2021-00097), reiterated the requirements for additional discovery. In particular, in this matter, the petitioner, having...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied a Petitioner’s Motion for Additional Discovery. Scientific Design Co., Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., IPR2021-01537, Paper 18 (PTAB Aug. 12, 2022). In an inter partes review...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently denied a Motion for Additional Discovery because the movant could not prove beyond mere speculation that the requested documents would be useful to show witness scripting....more
In Ligotti v. United Healthcare Services, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106992 (S.D. Fla., June 8, 2021), a Florida district court held that a health care provider challenging claim denials on behalf of his patients cannot satisfy...more
In our previous post we started talking about discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings under 37 CFR § 42.51 and, in particular, the scope and timing of seeking limited additional discovery under Rule...more
Discovery procedures in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings, governed by 37 CFR § 42.51, are more limited in scope and timing compared to cases in district court. There are three types of discovery at the Patent Trial...more
Discovery in an IPR proceeding is limited compared to district court litigation in order to focus the proceedings and promote speed and efficiency. The PTAB Practice Guide and 37 C.F.R 42.51 provide for three types of...more
This past year, Proskauer’s private fund litigation blog highlighted a Delaware Chancery case adopting an expansive view in favor of parties seeking information from companies under Section 220 of the Delaware General...more
Parties should think twice before posting potential evidence on social media, as the Plaintiff in Guarisco v. Boh Brothers Construction learned recently. The Eastern District of Louisiana imposed sanctions on Plaintiff for...more
Effective as of January 1, 2020, all civil litigants in California will have additional discovery burdens. The California Code of Civil Procedure now requires “[a]ny documents or category of documents produced in response to...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently issued an Order that illustrates the circumstances in which a party may obtain additional discovery in an inter partes review (IPR). In Apple Inc. v. Singapore Asahi Chemical...more
In a recent appeal of two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held that the Board abused its discretion in denying...more
Our prior post on the PTAB’s second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide (TPG), published July 15, 2019, highlighted the additional guidance provided for petitions, patent owner preliminary responses and claim construction....more
The PTAB recently granted a Patent Owner’s motion to take additional discovery of Petitioner’s expert. In particular, the PTAB ordered Petitioner’s expert to produce documents that identify materials he reviewed in preparing...more
In Cavium, LLC v. Alacritech, Inc., Case IPR2018-00401 (PTAB Nov. 20, 2018) (Paper 24), the PTAB granted a Patent Owner’s motion for additional discovery relating to real party-in-interest. The split-panel decision is...more
Discovery is limited in inter partes review proceedings. As we previously discussed, discovery is available only “in the interest of justice,” and requests for discovery frequently are denied. Yet, a party may be aware of...more
The PTAB recently granted a rare motion for additional discovery into the question of whether an unnamed party, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), should have been named as a real-party-in-interest. In Kashiv LLC v....more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) granted-in-part Patent Owner Twilio Inc.’s motion for additional discovery pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). Though the “Patent Owner delayed in seeking the requested discovery”...more
The PTAB recently denied a motion for additional discovery that sought the production of documents argued to be relevant to inventorship. In Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. United Therapeutics, Corp., Case IPR2017-01621 and...more
In Mylan v. Allergan (IPR2016-00127, Paper No. 73), the PTAB granted a rare request for discovery filed be Petitioner in response to summaries of data presented in a Patent Owner Response used to rebut obviousness. In...more
In Certain Integrated Circuits with Voltage Regulators and Products Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1024, Chief ALJ Bullock recently denied a motion by Complainant R2 Semiconductor, Inc. to take additional discovery and...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated a decision granting a request for additional discovery as an informative opinion. Informative opinions are not binding; they rather provide guidance on rules and...more
After briefing on the Garmin factors to determine if additional discovery was “necessary in the interest of justice” during an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted the patent...more
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow a nonmovant, when faced with a motion for summary judgment, to ask the court to defer ruling on the motion, to allow it additional time to take discovery. The process is...more