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
Navigating patent infringement claims requires a deep understanding of both the legal landscape and the specifics of the technology at stake, especially in the fast-evolving cybersecurity sector. Creative litigation...more
Defendants in patent cases should be wary of the possibility that a plaintiff will attempt to add new defendants after a stay for inter partes review is lifted. In a pending case involving patents directed to “space...more
The Western District of Texas recently denied a defendant’s motion to stay pending inter partes review based in part on the defendant’s status as a non-party in the IPR proceedings. In doing so, the district court focused on...more
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 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
On May 3, 2022, a panel of three PTAB administrative patent judges granted a motion for additional discovery in TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v. Parkervision, Inc., IPR2021-00985, (PTAB 2022), in which the PTAB deemed the...more
Referencing the use of antecedents from a “wherein” clause, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s claim construction and vacated its summary judgment ruling of indefiniteness that relied...more
Following the grant of institution of a recent IPR petition in the matter of Satco Products, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, IPR2021-00662, Paper 26 (PTAB Feb. 11, 2022) concerning U.S. Patent No....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
As a Patent Owner in an instituted Inter Partes Review (IPR), there are dozens of considerations to bear in mind – from strategically approaching depositions and maximizing expert testimony, to drafting the final say in your...more
In a series of related inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently granted a petitioner’s motion to strike the sworn affidavit of a witness who was unwilling to submit to cross-examination. In...more
In an inter partes review (IPR), the scope of discovery is expressly stated in the C.F.R. and additional discovery must either be agreed upon by the parties or granted by the Board when it “is necessary in the interest of...more
MLC Intellectual Property, LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc., Appeal No. 2020-1413 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2021) - For those interested in an important Section 112 written description case, we recommend reading the Juno...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...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
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a patent owner’s motion for additional discovery of documents—from petitioners, real parties-in-interest, and third parties—because patent owner failed to show that such discovery...more
Over the course of the past year, trial attorneys in state and federal courts have seen cases effectively stayed by COVID-related delays. COVID hampered in-person discovery and caused courts to re-set jury trial dates. Such...more
The regulations governing discovery in an inter partes review ("IPR") proceeding do not provide for the same methods of discovery available in a patent infringement lawsuit. As such, when opportunities for discovery...more
As discussed in our previous post, one of the most critical tasks for Patent Owners during the Inter Partes Reviews (“IPR”) discovery period is deposing the Petitioner’s expert. Since IPR depositions are treated differently...more
C.R. Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., Appeal No. 2019-1756, -1934 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2020) - Our Case of the Week is one of two cases decided this week in which the Federal Circuit finds that a district court jumped the...more
Litigants facing their first inter partes review (“IPR”) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) may be surprised to learn that discovery timing, procedures, and scope are quite different compared to district court...more
In a series of IPR proceedings between Petitioner Adobe Inc. and Patent Owner RAH Color Technologies LLC, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declined to extend attorney work product protection to deposition questions seeking...more
In inter partes review (IPR) proceedings of patents relating to printer technology, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted Patent Owner’s motion to compel testimony over Petitioner’s arguments that the information...more