Although a party may infer that documents sought to be discovered from declaration, inferences are too speculative to warrant additional discovery

In a series of related decisions, the Board has echoed statements made in earlier decisions regarding motions for additional discovery. Specifically, the Board has indicated that even where a party can infer the existence of a document, the movant must show more than an inference. See Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00043, Paper 48 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00044, Paper 46 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,IPR2013-00045, Paper 46 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00046, Paper 46 (Oct. 4, 2013);Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00047, Paper 42 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets, B.V., IPR2013-00048, Paper 50 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00049, Paper 45 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00050, Paper 42 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., IPR2013-00052, Paper 45 (Oct. 4, 2013); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V., Paper 43 (Oct. 4, 2013). These decisions reaffirm just how difficult it will be to obtain additional discovery in IPR proceedings. In authorizing the motion for additional discovery, the Board indicated that “that inference of a document’s existence is too speculative a basis on which to premise a motion for additional discovery. Rather, the moving party must demonstrate that evidence already in its possession tends to show, beyond speculation, that the requested document not only exists but also contains useful information.”