3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Nonattorney Patent-Agent Privilege Recognized by the Federal Circuit

    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLPJ. Derek McCorquindaleApril 1, 2016

    at 7-8 (“[W]hen a writ of mandamus is sought to prevent the wrongful exposure of privileged communications, the remedy of mandamus is appropriate ‘because maintenance of the attorney-client privilege up to its proper limits has substantial importance to the administration of justice, and because an appeal after disclosure of the privileged communication is an inadequate remedy.’” (alteration in original) (quoting In re SpaldingSports World Wide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 804 (Fed. Cir. 2000))). The court also stressed “the importance of resolving this issue and clarifying a question with which many district courts have struggled, and over which they disagree.”

  2. Divided Federal Circuit Panel Creates Patent Agent Privilege

    BakerHostetlerMargaret AbernathyMarch 16, 2016

    [ii] 373 U.S. 379, 383 (1963). [iii] 203 F.3d 800, 804-06 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [iv] The Patent Office issued a “Request for Comments on Domestic and International Issues Related to Privileged Communications Between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients.”

  3. Divided Federal Circuit Panel Creates Patent Agent Privilege

    Baker & Hostetler LLPMargaret AbernathyMarch 15, 2016

    [ii] 373 U.S. 379, 383 (1963).[iii] 203 F.3d 800, 804-06 (Fed. Cir. 2000).[iv] The Patent Office issued a “Request for Comments on Domestic and International Issues Relatedto Privileged Communications Between Patent Practitioners and Their Clients.”