CALL US: 206.533.3854
CALL US  206.533.3854
AEON Law logo full color transparent

IPR Discovery Rules

Discovery rules
Are focused and limited
Under AIA

Under the new inter partes review (IPR) process, which replaced the old inter partes examination process as of September 16, 2012 under the America Invesnts Act (AIA), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been developing new rules to govern the scope of discovery in cases challenging the validity of patents.

Only limited discovery is available regarding prior publications and patents that may invalidate the challenged patent.

PTAB rules regarding discovery are far more specific than federal court discovery rules, given the far shorter time available for discovery. Discovery can drag on for years in federal court but is normally limited to one year with the PTAB.

“Routine discovery” includes discovery of exhibits cited in papers or testimony and “relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding.”

Whereas in normal federal cases the standard for discovery is whether the request is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,” in PTAB proceedings the standard is higher.

In a March, 2013 decision in the case of Garmin v. Cuozzo, the PTAB specified five factors that were important when ruling on a motion for an order authorizing additional discovery:

  1. More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation — The mere possibility of finding something useful, and the mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate that he requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice.
  2. Litigation Positions and Underlying Basis — Asking for the other party’s litigation positions and the underlying basis for those positions is not necessary in the interest of justice.
  3. Ability to Generate Equivalent Information By Other Means –- Information a party can reasonably figure out or assemble without a discovery request would not be in the interest of justice to have produced by the other party.
  4. Easily Understandable Instructions — The questions should be easily understandable. Ten pages of complex instructions for answering questions is prima facie unclear.
  5. Requests Not Overly Burdensome To Answer — The requests must not be overly burdensome to answer, given the expedited nature of the IPR process.

Related Articles

Just Because It’s on the Internet Doesn’t Mean It’s “Publicly Accessible”

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) has denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR) because the petitioner failed to ...
Read More

Trademark Denied for “ChatGPT”

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied OpenAI’s applications to trademark “ChatGPT” and “GPT.” The Final Office Action states, “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark ...
Read More

Federal Circuit: “Improving User Experience” Isn’t Patentable

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a lower court decision that patent claims for methods and systems for improving how search results are displayed to users ...
Read More

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.



Artificial Intelligence

Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

Computer Technology & Software

Consumer Electronics

Electrical Devices



Mechanical Devices

Consumer & Retail Products

Hardware & Tools

Toys & Games



Chemical Compounds

Digital Health

Healthcare Products



Books & Publications

Brand Creation

Luxury Products

Photography & Video

Product Design