client attorney privilege
DESCRIPTION
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) 14th Session, January 25-29, 2010 (Geneva, Switzerland)TRANSCRIPT
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
1
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
WIPOStanding Committee on the Law of Patent
14th SessionJanuary 25-29, 2010
Koji HIRAYAMA YUASA and HARA
Client–Attorney PrivilegeIn re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Client-Attorney Privilege
• The attorney-client privilege functions “to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients.” United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989).
• The attorney-client privilege “exists to protect not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).
2
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTINGCommunication with Foreign Agents/Attorneys
• Choice-of-law analysis• If a communication involves a U.S. patent application,
U.S. privilege law applies.• Communications with a foreign patent agent are not privileged,
unless the foreign agent is acting under the authority and control of a U.S. attorney.
• If a communication involves a foreign patent application, as a matter of commity, the law of that foreign country is considered whether that law provides a privilege comparable to CAP.
3
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTINGIn re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation
• In re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation (S.D.N.Y. August 8, 2006)
• available at http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac./FDCT/SNY/2006/20060808_0000927.SNY.htm/qx
• This is not a final decision of the case, but an interlocutory order deciding whether “client attorney privilege” is applied to foreign patent agents and/or law firms.
4
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Facts of the Case
• Novartis and affiliate companies market Exelon, a medication for Alzheimer’s type dementia.
• Novartis et al. have U.S. patents for “rivastigmine” tartrate, the active ingredient in Exelon.
• Dr. Reddy’s Lab. and other two companies sought approval from FDA to market generic versions of Exelon.
• Novartis et al. (Plaintiff) sued Dr. Reddy’s Lab. et al (Defendant) before S.D.N.Y. for induced infringement of P’s U.S. patents.
5
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Facts of the Order
• D seeks to compel production of P’s communications concerning corresponding foreign patent prosecution.
• P alleges that attorney-client privilege (CAP) is applied to such communications.
6
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Issues of the Order
• Is CAP applied to P’s communications with foreign patent agents and/or law firms (37 countries or regions) ?
• Does P describe the nature of the documents with enough detail to “enable D to assess the applicability of CAP ?
7
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Requirements for Alleging CAP
8
• A party withholding documents on the basis of an asserted privilege must describe the nature of the documents with enough detail to “enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege.” FRCP Rule 26(b)(5).
• Local Civil Rule 26.2 requires that the following information shall be provided in objecting to any means of discovery or disclosure:
• “(A) For documents: (i) the type of the document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (ii) the general subject matter of the document; (iii) the date of the document; and (iv) such other information as is sufficient to identify the document for a subpoena duces tecum.
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Categorical Log v. Itemized Log
• P served D and filed with the Court “a categorical log" in which a subset of documents is classified by a category, rather than providing a traditional, itemized log.
• Ex.: Categorical log entries 1 and 40 refer to confidential communications between clients and “Australian patent agents and/or Australian law firms,” concerning “patent prosecution for [the] Australian equivalent to [the] ‘807 patent.”
• It is not possible to determine whether CAP may be applied to Australian law firms without further information.
• D argued that the categorical format did not provide the information to assess applicability of CAP.
9
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Decision of the Order
• Is CAP applied to P’s communications with foreign patent agents and/or law firms (belonging to 37 countries) ?
• Does P describe the nature of the documents with enough detail to “enable D to assess the applicability of CAP ?
10
NO. (for 30 countries)YES. (for 11 countries)
NO.
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Applicability of CAP
• CAP not applied (though not denied – sanctioned):• Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil (log #44), Cyprus,
Denmark, Greece (log #14), Finland, France, Hong Kong*1, Hungary*2, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Italy, Luxemburg*3, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand (log #63), Pakistan, Philippines (log #66), Poland, Portugal, Romania (log #29), South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan.
• *1 No legal advice was sought or given.• *2 No evidence was submitted to show that a secrecy obligation under Hungarian law
imply an evidentiary privilege.• *3 CAP denied.
• CAP applied:• Brazil (log #5), Czech, Germany, Greece (log #53), New Zealand (log
#24), Philippines (log #26), Romania (log #69), Singapore, Slovakia, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom.
11
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Categorical Log Sanctioned
• A categorical log may be used, for example, where a document-by-document listing would be unduly burdensome.
• However, to the extent that the Court finds any categorical justification inadequate, all documents within the category shall be ordered produced.
• Further, to the extent that the Court finds any individual document to have been improperly classified within a category, that document shall be ordered produced without further individual review.
12
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING Short Summary
• Applicability of CAP also depends on how the holder of communications alleges CAP (how to describe Privilege Log).
• Need to care about Federal/Local Rules.
• Not just for U.S. litigation, we need to handle IP matters in “the world.”
• Need for establishing a solution for the issue of CAP at the international level.
13
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
14
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
LAW
DIVIS
ION
PATENT
DIVIS
ION
TRADEMARK
& DESIG
N
DIVIS
ION
ACCOUNTING
& AUDIT
ING
DIVIS
ION
YUASA AND HARALAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING
Thank you for your attention !
Koji HIRAYAMA YUASA and HARA