Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Technology company general counsel, who routinely wrestle with accusations of patent infringement, can breathe a sigh of relief � thanks to an en banc decision last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In deciding In re Seagate Technologies, No. 830, the Federal Circuit has made it far more difficult to accuse a company of willful patent infringement, a finding that allows for triple damages. The ruling also made a crucial clarification regarding waivers of attorney-client privilege: If a defendant waives privilege for so-called “opinion counsel,” that does not mean it is also waived for a defendant’s communications with trial counsel. ‘Pro-accused’ ruling “This is a very pro-accused infringer decision,” said Edward Reines, a patent litigation partner in Weil, Gotshal & Manges’ Redwood Shores, Calif., office and president of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. “It’s a great day for Silicon Valley tech companies.” When a company was accused of patent infringement, often a first step was obtaining an opinion letter from an attorney, known as opinion counsel, on whether the company is indeed infringing. Then, when a case reached trial, accused companies would often waive privilege for those opinion letters � provided, of course, that the counsel found there was no infringement. Often courts treated this gesture as sufficient to counter allegations that a defendant was willfully infringing on a plaintiff’s patent. Yet in the Seagate case, accusers used this opinion counsel privilege waiver to seek communications between defendants and their trial counsel. And when a New York federal judge ordered Scotts Valley, Calif.-based Seagate to turn over trial counsel communications to its opponent, Convolve Inc., the order sent shivers through the nation’s intellectual property litigation bar. Amid the outcry, the Federal Circuit court decided to take a new look at the privilege issue, along with the standard for willfulness. It received nearly two dozen amicus briefs on the issue. “We conclude that the significantly different functions of trial counsel and opinion counsel advise against extending waiver to trial counsel,” Judge Haldane Robert Mayer wrote in the unanimous decision by 10 judges. Two judges also wrote concurring opinions. And in deciding what constitutes willful infringement, “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement,” Mayer wrote.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

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

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.