Privilege in Multinational IP Litigation...Dec 15, 2017 · Privilege for Foreign Patent Agents 37...
Transcript of Privilege in Multinational IP Litigation...Dec 15, 2017 · Privilege for Foreign Patent Agents 37...
Privilege in Multinational IP Litigation
Keith Slenkovich - WilmerHaleRoman Krupenin - Yandex
December 15, 2017
WilmerHale 2
Agenda
I. Hypothetical Fact Pattern
II. Privilege Issue Questions in Multinational Litigation
III. U.S. Privilege Law Basics
IV. Privilege Outside of the United States
V. Foreign Privilege Law in U.S. Courts
VI. Recommendations for Preserving Privilege
WilmerHale 3
Hypothetical Fact Pattern
PersonalEmoji
• Chinese mobile application software developer• Flagship product is FaceEmoji, a mobile app that allows a user
to personalize 3D emojis, by importing a picture and creating a 3D version
• FaceEmoji is wildly popular worldwide• PersonalEmoji has an R&D office in California, and it maintains
sales and marketing offices in all major European, Asian, and U.S. markets
WilmerHale 4
Hypothetical Fact Pattern
HolidayEmoji
• A California-based mobile applications developer
• Recently launched EmojiGram app. Product is similar to FaceEmoji, but with the focus is on supplying vivid life-like emojis for holiday occasions
• Founded by former product manager for PersonalEmoji
WilmerHale 5
Hypothetical Fact Pattern
Qualitrics
• Chinese electronics manufacturer• Has a contract with PersonalEmoji to include FaceEmoji as a
standard application in all its handheld devices such as mobile phones and tablets
• Sells its devices in all major European, Asian, and U.S. markets
WilmerHale 6
Disputes
PersonalEmoji sued HolidayEmoji for patent infringement in the jurisdictions of China, Germany, France and the United States
Patent Infringement Claims
HolidayEmoji responded with assertion of its own patents and petitioned to the PTAB for inter partes review, and launched invalidity proceedings in the Federal Patent Court in Germany
Invalidity and Counter Claims
FTC (US) and MOFCOM (China) opened investigations into alleged unfair and monopolistic trade practices by PersonalEmoji, including its attempt to monopolize the personalized emoji market using its “patently invalid” patents
Government Investigations
PersonalEmoji and HolidayEmoji have substantial patent and trademark assets in major jurisdictions, including the US, European and Asian countries
WilmerHale 7
Coordinating Litigation
HolidayEmoji also sued Qualitrics for infringing the same patents as PersonalEmoji in parallel actions in China, Germany, and France.
Coordinating counsel for PersonalEmoji is based in California and is interfacing with the following groups of lawyers:
1. Patent litigation counsels in China, Germany and France2. Patent prosecution attorneys and agents in the US and Germany3. Competition counsels in the US and China4. Counsels for Qualitrics in China, Germany, and France
WilmerHale 8
WilmerHale 9
Privilege Issue Questions in Multinational Litigation
1. How to create a privilege protection plan and identify potential risks in exchanging information with foreign legal counsels and patent agents/attorneys?
2. Are protections available in other jurisdictions similar to those set out in the US?
3. What are the safeguards that needs to be put in place in order to maintain common interest privilege? Is selective waiver possible under the circumstances?
4. How privilege protection is maintained in case where foreign in-house counsel is involved?
WilmerHale 10
Elements of U.S. Attorney-Client Privilege
A communication
Made in Confidence
Between or among privileged persons
For the purpose of obtaining legal advice
WilmerHale 11
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
Subject-Matter Waiver • Federal Rules of Evidence 502(a): If a disclosure is voluntary, then all
communications relating to the same subject matter are waived
Implied Wavier• Client or attorney acts in a manner inconsistent with maintaining confidential
nature of privileged communications or fails to take reasonable steps to preserve confidentiality
WilmerHale 12
Selective Waiver Doctrine
Usually raised in government investigations
• Companies voluntarily disclose privileged materials to investigating agencies in hope of winning cooperation credit from the government, but claim privilege as to civil litigants
• Diversified Industries, Inc. v. Meredith, 572 F.2d 596 (8th Cir. 1977)• Court held that defendant’s production to the SEC amounted only to a
limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege• Reasoned that “to hold otherwise may have the effect of thwarting the
developing procedure of corporations to employ independent outside counsel to investigate and advise.”
WilmerHale 13
Selective Waiver Doctrine
Most circuits reject the selective waiver doctrine
• Other than the Eight Circuit, all circuits that examined this doctrine ultimately rejected it
• First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits have held that voluntarily disclosure to government agencies waived privilege
WilmerHale 14
Elements of the Work Product Doctrine
• Documents and tangible things
• Prepared in anticipation of litigation
• By a party or a party’s representative
WilmerHale 15
Waiver of Work Product Immunity
Work product protection is waived when disclosed in a manner inconsistent with maintaining its confidentiality
• Voluntary disclosure to an adversary waives the protection for the material disclosed
• Providing a document to a testifying expert ordinarily waives the protection for the document
Disclosure to third parties constitute a waiver if the disclosure substantially increased the possibility that an adversary could obtain the information
WilmerHale 16
Common Interest Doctrine
Allows a party to share privileged materials with a third party who has the requisite common interest without waiving privilege
• Doctrine is not a freestanding form of privilege, but rather an exception to privilege waiver
• Does not confer any additional protection if the shared material is not otherwise privileged
WilmerHale 17
Application of Common Interest Doctrine
• Jurisdictions differ as to (1) the definition of a “common interest”; (2) when the common interest privilege may be invoked; and (3) what type of agreement is necessary
• Presence of Attorney: The Third Circuit holds that for the common-interest privilege to apply, a codefendant or an attorney must direct communications to a group member’s attorney. Meaning that direct disclosure to a member may destroy the privilege.
WilmerHale 18
Waiver and Common Interest Doctrine
• A party cannot unilaterally waive privilege to information received in connection to a common interest agreement
Unilateral Disclosure
• Even following termination of the agreement, one party may not disclose to a third party confidential information obtained from the other party
Termination of Common Interest Agreement
• In a subsequent dispute between the common interest parties, the shared information is not privileged
Dispute Between the Parties
WilmerHale 19
Patent Agent Privilege Recognized by the Federal Law
Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963)
• Held that the “preparation and prosecution of patent applications for other constitutes the practice of law.”
In re Queen’s University at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
• Privilege applies to communications “reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications or other proceeding before the Office involving a patent application or patent in which the practitioner is authorized to participate.”
WilmerHale 20
Scope of Patent Agent Privilege
Only in relation to practice before the USPTO
• Includes those tasks “which are reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications or other proceeding before the Office involving a patent application or patent in which the practitioner is authorized to participate.”
• Does not cover communications regarding opinion on the validity of another party’s patent related to potential litigation or purchase or sale of a patent, or in which a patent agent provides an opinion on infringement.
WilmerHale 21
State Law on Patent Agent Privilege
Uncertain if state courts will recognize the privilege• The In re Queen’s University decision is not binding on state courts
In re Silver, 500 S.W.3d 644 (Tex. App. 2016)• State law contract dispute related to payments due under license
agreements. • Two types of communications: (i) related to patent prosecution; and (ii)
commercialization of technology• Result: Court upheld lower court’s order to produce all communications.
WilmerHale 22
Privilege for Foreign Patent Agents
37 C.F.R. § 42.57: New privilege rule, effective as of December 7, 2017
• Protects communications between a client and a USPTO patent practitioner or a foreign patent practitioner from discovery in PTAB proceedings
• Communications will be given the same protections of privilege as found under Federal law for communications between a client and an attorney authorized to practice in the United States
Rule does not require reciprocity from foreign jurisdictions
Scope of coverage• Shall receive the same treatment on all issues affecting privilege or waiver, including
communications with employees or assistants of the practitioner
WilmerHale 23
Discovery in Support of Foreign Litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) provides a possibility to obtain discovery from persons located in the U.S. to be used in foreign litigation
Threshold: (i) person must reside in the district; (ii) type of proceedings; (iii) application made by respective tribunal or any interested party
No requirement to show foreign discoverability
WilmerHale 24Source: Wikipedia // https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_legal_systems
WilmerHale 25
Privilege Outside of the United States
25
Common Law Constructs
• Privilege INCLUDES confidentiality requirement
• Focus is on privileged nature of communications, which are shielded from disclosure
• In-house counsel privilege is generally viewed the same as outside counsel, with a few exceptions
• Extensive discovery is possible
Civil Law Constructs
• Confidentiality (professional secrecy) requirement SUBSTITUTES for privilege
• Focus is on enforcement of attorneys’ professional secrecy obligation
• Several exceptions apply to in-house counsel
• Privilege has importance mostly in criminal and administrative proceedings because there is virtually no discovery in commercial litigation
WilmerHale 26
Approach to Privilege in EU-Wide Actions
• No privilege for communications with in-house attorneys in relation to competition law investigations by the EU Commissions
• Case C550/07 P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd v. European Commission, 2010 E.C.R. I-8301 (Sept. 14, 2010)
• Could be applied more broadly for other types of EU-wide proceedings• However, local legislation shall apply in patent infringement litigation in
individual jurisdictions of the European Union
WilmerHale 27
Privilege in England
Legal Advice Privilege• Protects confidential communications between attorney and client whose
dominant purpose is seeking or providing legal advice • Similar to U.S. attorney-client privilege
Litigation Privilege• Protects confidential communications between attorney and client or
attorney and third parties whose dominant purpose is to be used in connection with actual or contemplated litigation
• Similar to U.S. work product doctrine
Applies to external and in-house counsel• Covers only legal advice, not compliance or business administrative advice
WilmerHale 28
Privilege in Germany
Professional Duty of Confidentiality• Attorneys are obligated to protect confidential information obtained from
the client or third parties in the course of representation• Attorneys can refuse to testify on confidential information or produce
client documents
Disclosure Requirement in Civil Cases• A litigant has no duty of full and frank disclosure. Litigant is allowed to
withhold facts detrimental to its case if such information does not change the facts presented to the court. No duty to produce documents, but there is a burden to provide evidence in support of the position.
WilmerHale 29
Scope of Privilege in Germany • Only attorneys may refused to testify on confidential information
received during the client-attorney relationship so the court may compel the client to testify about the advice received from the lawyer
• Only protect documents in attorney’s possession. No protection for confidential documents in client’s custody.
• Whether in-house attorneys have the duty of confidentiality is very uncertain and disputed.
• Section 421 of ZPO (Zivilprocessordnung) sets out that a party could request the court to direct the other party to produce a record or document, which is limited to specific document or record in the hands of the opponent or to which opponent refers in its pleadings.
WilmerHale 30
Privilege in France
Duty of Professional Secrecy• External attorneys have an obligation of absolute professional secrecy and
cannot disclose confidential information provided by clients• May refuse to testify in court or produce documents
No privilege for in-house counsel
Discovery in Civil Cases• Limited discovery allowed• Parties are only required to disclose information to support their claims or
defense.• A party can request that specific evidence be disclosed, but cannot make
broad requests
WilmerHale 31
Privilege in Russia Advocate Secrecy
• An advocate may refuse to testify on attorney-client secrets or product confidential client documents
• Only applies to “advocates,” meaning qualified lawyers admitted to the barNo Privilege for lawyers who are not “advocates”
• Russia does not require lawyers to be admitted to the bar to practice law• Majority of Russian lawyers who work in-house or in law firms are not
admitted to the bar, known as “legal consultants”• Commercial secrecy regime provides protection for information only in
private relations and does not limit production at request of the court or administrative body
• Parties may request that the proceedings in relation to information covered by commercial secrecy be not public
WilmerHale 32
Privilege in China
Duty of Confidentiality• Attorneys admitted to the bar have a duty to keep client communications
and documents confidential• Duty of confidentiality does not permit an attorney to refuse to testify or
produce information if ordered by the court or a government agency• If an attorney refuses to testify, she may lose license or go to jail
In-house counsel are viewed differently than outside lawyers
Chinese privilege law is still developing• Although China does not recognize a principle of attorney-client privilege
similar to the United States, it is becoming more receptive to the concept of privilege
WilmerHale 33
Privilege Comparison Chart United States United Kingdom Germany France Russia China
Type of Law Common Common Civil Civil Civil Civil
Broad Discovery Yes Yes No No No No
Types of Privilege
1. Attorney-Client Privilege
2. Work Product Doctrine
1. Legal Advice Privilege
2. Litigation Privilege
Professional Secrecy
Professional Secrecy Advocate Secrecy Not Available
Privilege for In-House Counsel? Yes Yes Unclear No No No
Common Interest or Joint Defense Exception to Waiver
Yes Yes No No No No
Selective Waiver? No Yes Yes No No No
WilmerHale 34
Foreign Privilege Law in U.S. Courts Choice of Law
• Choice of privilege law questions do not arise unless the privilege rules of the two jurisdiction differ
• If there is no difference, Court will apply U.S. federal common law to patent cases
• Privilege questions are not unique to patent cases so the court will apply the privilege law of the regional circuit rather than the law of the Federal Circuit
Burden of Proof • The party requesting the court apply the privilege law of another jurisdiction
has the burden to prove that the foreign privilege law is applicable
WilmerHale 35
“Touch Bases” Test to Determine Choice of Law
Determine whether the communication “touch bases” with the United States
• Asks whether the communications focused on a U.S. proceedings or laws • Asks whether the communications involved U.S. clients or attorneys
If the communication does not touch bases with the United States, the court determines the country with the strongest interest in the communication.
• Determine which country has the most compelling or predominant interest in whether the communications should remain confidential• Asks where did the communication take place and where did the attorney-client
relationship form• Court will apply the law of the country with the most compelling or predominant
interest in the communication, unless the foreign law is contrary to U.S. public policy
WilmerHale 36
More on ‘Touch Bases’ ApproachExamples of compelling or predominant interest analysis
• Patent Prosecution: Golden Trade, S.r.L. v. Lee Apparel Co., 143 F.R.D. 514 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)
• Court considered what “contacts” the communications had with the United States
• “[C]ommunications by a foreign client with foreign patent agents ‘relating to assistance in prosecuting patent applications in the United States’ are governed by American privilege law whereas communications ‘relating to assistance in prosecuting patent applications in their own foreign country’ or ‘rendering legal advice ... on the patent law of their own country’ are, as a matter of comity, governed by the privilege ‘law of the foreign country in which the patent application is filed,’ even if the client is a party to an American lawsuit.”
WilmerHale 37
More on ‘Touch Bases’ Approach
• Patent Litigation: Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc., 271 F.R.D.58, 65 (S.D.N.Y.2010).
• “Communications that relate to legal proceedings in the United States, or that reflect the provision of advice regarding American law, “touch base” with the United States and, therefore, are governed by American law, even though the communication may involve foreign attorneys or a foreign proceeding.”
• “Conversely, communications regarding a foreign legal proceeding or foreign law “touch base” with the foreign country.”
WilmerHale 38
Substantive vs. Procedural Law Courts will apply federal procedural rules even if they decide that substantive foreign privilege law applies.
Foreign countries may not have robust privilege protections because their procedural rules does not permit the discovery of the communications at issue.
• In re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation, 237 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2006): Although a foreign court would not order disclosure of the communications at issue, the court refused to imply privilege from discovery procedures where none exists.
• Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrex Pharma. Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) : The communications at issue were not privileged under the foreign substantive law; however, the communications would not be discoverable under the foreign procedural law. Recognizing this dilemma, the court applied U.S. privilege law even though the communications did not touch base with the United States.
Foreign Privilege Law Substantive
U.S. Discovery ProcessProcedural
WilmerHale 39
Recommendations for Preserving Privilege
Communications with In-house Counsel for Foreign Clients
• Determine whether the foreign privilege law applies to in-house counsel in the same manner as external lawyers
• If the client’s in-house counsel is not admitted to the bar, make sure that they are acting at a licensed attorney’s direction
• Retain external counsel as early as possible to avoid privilege issues related to communications with in-house counsel
• Advise your client to be mindful of information shared with in-house counsel
WilmerHale 40
Recommendations for Preserving Privilege
Sharing Information in Coordinated Litigation
• Enter into an common interest agreement before disclosing confidential information to third parties to reduce risk of privilege waiver
• Involve U.S. lawyers to support that the communication “touches base” with the United States and U.S. privilege law should apply
• Include explicit language about the measures to maintain the confidentiality of the communications
• Avoid storing documents in countries with weak privilege protections
WilmerHale 41
Recommendations for Preserving Privilege
Limitations of Common Interest Agreements
• Even if there is an agreement, the doctrine will not protect communications shared before the triggering event required under the applicable circuit law
• A common interest agreement is not dispositive of whether the doctrine actually applies to the communications at issue
WilmerHale 42
Questions