Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 APRIL 2021

PTAB: Discovery Requests Targeting Objective Evidence Of Nonobviousness Denied Under Garmin Framework

Akin
Akin
Contributor
Akin

Akin

Akin is a global law firm with more than 1,100 lawyers and advisors who pride themselves on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Akin

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...

United StatesIntellectual Property

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 would support a showing of nonobviousness. In an inter partes review (IPR), under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2), absent agreement of the parties, a moving party must establish that additional discovery is justified in the "interests of justice." In making such a determination, the PTAB considers the five factors articulated in Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR 2012-00001, Paper 26 at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013): (1) whether the moving party possesses evidence tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will be uncovered; (2) whether the moving party is requesting the other party's litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions; (3) whether the moving party has the ability to generate the requested or equivalent

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from