In International Business Machines Corporation v.Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00180, Paper 22, (July 3, 2014), the Board denied petitioner’s request to file a transcript of the inventor’s testimony as supplemental information. The Board was unpersuaded by the argument that the inventor testimony is relevant to a claim for which trial has been instituted. The Board said that the general relevancy of an inventor’s testimony regarding the operation of the invention has little relevance to inter partse review proceedings. The possibility that it might be useful in understanding the invention is not significant enough to show that consideration of the information would be in the interests of justice to allow additional testimony on issues already developed by Petitioner on the record. The Board observed that the request focused on its utility to the panel’s understanding of the technology or assistance in claim construction, a utility that seems generic in nature and untethered to any specific claim for which trial has been instituted.