Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 APRIL 2015

Third Party Subpoena Permitted In IPR

The IPR was instituted on the grounds that the petitioner was likely to prevail in showing that the primary reference rendered the patent owner's claims obvious under § 103(a).

United StatesIntellectual Property

Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC

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 owner's motion to compel discovery regarding whether the primary reference was "commonly owned" by the patent owner.  Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, Case IPR2014-00552 (PTAB, Feb. 18, 2015) (Giannetti, APJ).

The IPR was instituted on the grounds that the petitioner was likely to prevail in showing that the primary reference rendered the patent owner's claims obvious under § 103(a).  The patent owner later motioned to compel testimony and production of evidence from a third-party company and two third-party inventors, hoping to establish that the primary reference was "commonly owned" by a patent owner and thereby disqualified as prior art under § 103(c).

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.

See more popular content from