In Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Rencol, Limited, IPR2013-00309, Paper (September 4, 2014), petitioner sought (1) detailed sales records of the products covered and not-covered by the patent, (2) records of conception of the invention, (3) testimony and records relating to the identification of prior art. The Board applied the Garmin Factors. As to sales information, the Board found petitoner failed under the First Garmin Factor – demonstrating more that a possibility the inventof would be useful and the Fifth Garmin Factor — that resposne was not budensome. As to conception, the Board denied the additional discovery under the Third Garmin Factor, the ability to generate the information by other means (i.e., already scheduled depositions), and the Fifth Garmin Factor, undue burden. As to the identification of prior art, the Board denied discovery under the First Garmin Factor — a failure to show the discovery will lead to useful information.