Evidence of General Association Insufficient to Justify Real Party in Interest Discovery

Nov 16, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

The statutory standard to seek discovery in the PTAB is “necessary in the interest of justice.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5).  The PTAB has previously held that a number of factors are important in determining whether discovery requests are “in the interest of justice,” including the likelihood of discovering something useful: 

  1. More Than A Possibility And Mere Allegation -- The mere possibility of finding something useful, and mere allegation that something useful will be found, are insufficient to demonstrate that the requested discovery is necessary in the interest of justice. The party requesting discovery should already be in possession of evidence tending to show beyond speculation that in fact something useful will be uncovered.
  2. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper 26 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (discussing factors). 

Here, the PTAB denied Patent Owner’s request because it amounted to no more than a mere allegation of some kind of general association between Petitioner and RPX. “The alleged facts presented by Patent Owner during the conference call do not show more than a mere possibility that something useful will be discovered and are therefore insufficient to show beyond mere speculation that discovery would be in the interests of justice.”

Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd. v. Virnetx Inc., IPR2015-01046, Paper 18 (PTAB Nov. 12, 2015)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

June 5, 2026

The Supreme Court unanimously held that for a complaint of induced infringement, a patent owner must allege that the accused infringer took affirmative, not passive, steps to encourage direct infringement. Thus, where a generic drug has a skinny label, to induce infringement of the carved-out patented use of the drug, the generic company must have taken steps that were designed to cause others to perform the patented use, not just steps that could cause such conduct.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 07, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois granted a summary judgment motion of no invalidity based on indefiniteness because the qualitative terms like “sufficiently slow” and “desired period of time” were definite when viewed in light of the surrounding claim language and specification.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 9, 2026

In the April 1, 2026 edition of the Official Gazette, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced a new procedural framework that permits patent owners to submit a limited, early response to a request for ex parte reexamination.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.