By Kelly E. Rose
As we’ve previously discussed, the inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) procedures in the USPTO allow for parties to take discovery. Specifically, Rule 42.51 enumerates the permitted categories of discovery, including: (a) mandatory initial disclosures, (b) routine discovery and (c) additional discovery. Of particular interest is a subcategory of routine discovery that requires a party to serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party.
Rule 42.51(b)(1)(iii) requires that
“[u]nless previously served, a party must serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced during the proceeding concurrent with the filing or documents or things that contains the inconsistency. This requirement does not make discoverable anything otherwise protected by legally recognized privileged such as attorney-client or attorney work product. This requirement extends to inventors, corporate officers and persons involved in the preparation or filing of the documents and things.” Continue reading “What is Inconsistent Information and When Must Such Information be Disclosed?”