Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd v. Enplas Corporation, IPR2014-00605, Paper 17, (November 5, 2014), the Board\u00a0\u00a0denied patent owners motion for additional discovery which exceeded the scope of the Board’s authorization.\u00a0 The Board further warned the parties that\u00a0 future violation of our prohibition against unauthorized motions shall be subject to sanctions.<\/p>\n
As to the discovery that the Board did authorize, the Board found patent owner’s application of the Garmin Factors deficient.\u00a0 The Board found that the Patent Owner failed to meet the first factor by filing tow show beyond speculation that something useful will be discovered.\u00a0 The Board further found that patent owner was asking for information that it could reasonable figure or assemble on its own in violation of the third factor.\u00a0 Lastly the Board found that the requests were not sensibly and responsibly tailored to a genuine need as required by the fifth Garmin factor.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Seoul Semiconductor Co., Ltd v. Enplas Corporation, IPR2014-00605, Paper 17, (November 5, 2014), the Board\u00a0\u00a0denied patent owners motion for additional discovery which exceeded the scope of the Board’s authorization.\u00a0 The Board further warned the parties that\u00a0 future violation of our … Continue reading