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 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
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
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
On July 14, 2019, the USPTO published a second update to the AIA Trial Practice Guide with additional guidance about trial practice before the Board. This latest update, while lengthy, does not introduce many significant...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
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
The America Invents Act of 2011 requires petitioners in post-grant proceedings—including in all inter partes reviews (IPRs) and covered business method (CBM) reviews—to identify each ‘‘real party-in-interest’’ (i.e., ‘‘the...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 Polygroup Ltd. v. Willis Electric Co., Ltd., the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied a Patent Owner request for documents already provided in a co-pending lawsuit but restricted from use by a protective order....more
PTAB Update on Inter Partes Review - On August 19, 2015, the Director of the USPTO released a blog post reporting on the state of post-grant review proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 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
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd., et al. v. Enplas Corp. - Addressing the issue of whether a patent owner’s motion for additional discovery was justified based on a newly-filed exhibit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
When Congress created the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review procedures for challenging the validity of an issued patent, it was intended for these processes to be quicker and more...more