Key Discovery Points: Don’t Rush in as an AI Fool!
Key Discovery Points: If You Dispose of Relevant Hard Drives You Will Face (Some) Consequences
Key Discovery Point: Collecting Hyperlinked File Versions – Contemporaneous or “As Sent”?
Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez – Innovative Approach to Safety
Key Discovery Points: Timing is Mostly Everything in eDiscovery
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 305: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 2 – Discovery)
Key Discovery Points: Get Your Copy of the 2025 eDiscovery State of the Industry Report
What are Some of the Concerns With Applying AI to Document Review?
Biggest Benefits of Applying AI to Document Review
All in the Family: What’s Next for Cloud Attachments in eDiscovery?
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 302: Listen and Learn -- More on Discovery (Civ Pro)
Key Discovery Points: Even AI Experts Can Get Faked Out
Innovation in Second Requests: Data is Your Greatest Asset
Key Discovery Points: Timing Sweet Spots for Spoliation Motions
Key Discovery Points: Should Hyperlinked Files Be Treated as Modern Attachments?
Podcast: Are Legal Holds Protected by Privilege? Insights from the FTC's Battle with Amazon
Podcast: How Delaying Third Party Discovery Can End Up Costing You Dearly
How Attorneys’ Views on AI Are Impacting eDiscovery
Key Discovery Points: Get Your Objections In Early – and Keep Your Filings Succinct
Key Discovery Points: Lessons Learned from TikTok’s Redaction Fiasco
ALIVECOR, INC. v. APPLE INC. Before Hughes, Linn, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board - A party in a PTAB proceeding forfeits the ability to challenge an opposing party’s discovery obligation violation...more
Parties involved in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings sometimes contemplate submitting experimental data to support their positions. Although such data can be useful, there also are risks. Several recent cases...more
“Because Congress intended inter partes reviews to serve as a faster and more cost-effective alternative to litigating validity in district courts, discovery in inter partes reviews is limited.” See Garmin Int’l, Inc. v....more
After an inter partes review finds certain claims of a patent unpatentable, may the patentee assert other claims, immaterially different, in district court without being collaterally estopped? This was the question presented...more
Kilpatrick partners John Alemanni and Justin Krieger recently presented a CLE addressing “Building a Winning Evidentiary Record at the PTAB (and Surviving Appeal).”...more
Amongst the many decisions an attorney makes throughout litigation, there is one choice that can shape the outcome of a case way before filing a motion, setting discovery and trial strategy, or even calling a witness: venue,...more
“The statutory provisions for inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and covered-business method patent reviews caution against overly broad discovery and provide the same considerations, including efficient administration...more
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