PTAB Denies Motion to Compel Discovery of Evidence from Parallel ITC Investigation Due to Lack of Inconsistency

October 29, 2024

Reading Time : 2 min

The PTAB denied a petitioner’s motion to compel routine discovery that sought information from a parallel ITC investigation for alleged inconsistent positions taken by patent owner in the IPR. The board found that patent owner had not taken inconsistent positions but warned patent owner that it had an ongoing duty to produce any information inconsistent with arguments made during the present IPR, even if that information related to arguments patent owner had dropped at the ITC.

The patent at issue related to gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor devices. Petitioner alleged that patent owner was violating mandatory disclosure rules by not producing a textbook and expert testimony from the parallel ITC investigation that contained information inconsistent with patent owner’s IPR positions. Petitioner also argued that patent owner had to produce other non-public information that contained inconsistencies, including non-public exhibits in its ITC complaint, an expert report, and deposition transcripts.

The ITC information in question related to the role of hydrogen in GaN layers. Petitioner argued that the ITC arguments regarding the presence of hydrogen in a compensated GaN layer was inconsistent with patent owner’s IPR arguments. In response, patent owner explained that its ITC evidence showed that the GaN layer is compensated and contains hydrogen and magnesium, which was consistent with its IPR argument that “the mere presence of hydrogen is not enough to evidence a compensated GaN layer.” Patent owner also argued that the textbook produced in its ITC proceeding did not mention GaN at all, while its IPR arguments pertained specifically to GaN. Lastly, patent owner noted that demanding production of the textbook was unnecessary because petitioner could depose its expert on the textbook.

The board found that patent owner had not violated routine discovery rules and, in so finding, agreed that patent owner’s evidence was not inconsistent with its ITC positions. The board was also persuaded by patent owner’s certification under 37 CFR 42.51(b)(1)(iii) that it had investigated the potentially inconsistent information, and to the best of its knowledge, complied with its routine discovery obligations. The board explained that petitioner can still assert potentially inconsistent evidence, and any inconsistency would “serve to damage the credibility of [patent owner’s] arguments.” At this point however, the board found no such inconsistencies. Lastly, the board reminded patent owner that it has an ongoing duty to provide inconsistent information from the parallel ITC investigation, regardless of whether its position had changed in the interim.

Practice Tip: Parties in proceedings before the board have an ongoing duty under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51 to serve information inconsistent with a position taken in a parallel action. When faced with an allegation of withholding inconsistent information, parties must exercise diligence and investigate such claims to ensure satisfaction with the board’s evidentiary rules, especially when parties’ positions evolve in response to fact or expert discovery.

Innoscience Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Efficient Power Conversion Corp., IPR2023-01381, Paper 25 (August 8, 2024).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 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.