直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Article

Proportionality Requirements in Discovery

September/October 2020

IP Litigator

By Daniel C. Cooley; Brandon T. Andersen

Under the Federal Rules, discovery is limited to nonprivileged material that is both “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” According to the rules, when addressing the proportionality requirement courts should consider “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” In this article, Finnegan attorneys Dan Cooley and Brandon Andersen discuss the factors to consider when determining whether a given discovery request is proportional to the needs of the case including the importance of an issue, the adequacy of alternative discovery measures, and the privacy concerns involved.

 Read the full article here.

Tags

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)

Related Practices

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Related Offices

Reston, VA

Washington, DC

Related Professionals

Daniel C. Cooley
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2778
Email
Brandon T. Andersen
Associate
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2713
Email

Reprinted with permission from the IP Litigator, published by Wolters Kluwer. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm's clients.

Related Insights

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Conference

2026 China Pharmaceutical Innovation Conference

July 22-24, 2026

Shanghai

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP