X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Silicon Valley tech companies routinely receive letters telling them they might be infringing on someone else’s patents. Quantum Corp. in San Jose is no exception. “When you’re a tech company of any size, you have a target on your back,” says Jim Hall, the data-storage company’s chief patent counsel. That part’s routine. Where things have gotten murky � for corporate attorneys as well as their outside firms � is in deciding how best to respond to such letters, Hall said. Make the wrong move and, because of recent court decisions, “potentially your entire litigation strategy is subject to discovery,” he said. Good thing, then, that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced Friday it would be taking up just this issue. The court’s move has local IP attorneys buzzing, with some arguing that nothing less than their ability to provide fair advice to their clients is at stake. The conflict centers around opinion counsel, who are routinely consulted when a company is notified they could be infringing. When a patent dispute goes to trial, oftentimes the defendant submits an opinion counsel’s findings as a way to debunk allegations that the company willfully infringed, and to save the company from any treble damages. This amounts to a waiver of the attorney-client privilege � at least as to the letter � between the defendant and opinion counsel. However, in a patent case against Scotts Valley’s Seagate Technology, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York last year ordered Seagate to turn over essentially all attorney-client communications � not just discussions with opinion counsel, but also those with litigation counsel, who were from an entirely different firm, as is typical. In September, Seagate asked the appeals court to vacate the judge’s decision, and the court decided Friday it was time to solicit amicus briefs and take up the issue en banc. The court did not set any date for oral arguments. Local IP attorneys couldn’t overstate the importance of the issue at hand.
‘Obtaining opinion counsel is sort of looked at as buying an insurance policy. It’s expensive and hopefully will never have to be used.’

Edward Reines Weil, Gotshal & Manges


“I’m a trial lawyer, and any trial lawyer knows that it’s hard to work a case up properly with the other side’s lawyer listening in,” said Morrison & Foerster partner Alison Tucher, who has dealt with the issue in the course of her practice and filed an amicus brief (.pdf) in the Seagate proceeding. Attorneys said the lower court’s ruling waiving Seagate’s privilege was not a fluke but rather involved reasonable concerns from plaintiffs. For instance, a plaintiff may want some assurance that the opinion letter wasn’t cooked up to hide willful infringement, said Claude Stern, a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges. “The theory is this: What happens if the letter from the opinion counsel is just a contrivance?” Stern said. “Maybe the defendant didn’t care about the letter and just infringed anyway.” The court of appeal may rule that opinion counsel letters are no longer a useful defense against allegations of willful infringement. This, say some IP attorneys, could wipe out an entire cottage industry of opinion counsel providers. Stern says he has questioned the competence of some, but still believes they have value. In terms of creating discoverable material, some are more conscientious than others, he said. “A smart and well-schooled opinion counsel should not create documentation that is going to end up biting the defendant,” Stern said. “Unfortunately, there are quite a few opinion counsel who really don’t focus on the litigation consequences of their conduct and are less than careful about the documentation they create.” Edward Reines, a partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, also believes opinion counsel are useful. “Obtaining opinion counsel is sort of looked at as buying an insurance policy,” he said. “It’s expensive and hopefully will never have to be used.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.