Patent Infringement Claims Post-Qualcomm: Reassessing the Need for Opinion Letters

Balancing Opinions of Counsel Benefits Against Attorney–Client Privilege Risks

Recording of a 90-minute CLE teleconference with Q&A


Conducted on Thursday, December 11, 2008
Recorded event now available


Description

Opinions of counsel have traditionally been the standard first line of defense to avoid a willful infringement claim. However, asserting that defense puts attorney advice at issue and could result in waiver of the attorney–client privilege.

The Federal Circuit’s 2007 ruling in In re Seagate suggested a change of course on how companies should defend patent infringement claims and seemed to downplay the importance of opinion letters in willful infringement cases.

The court’s September 24 ruling Qualcomm v. Broadcom has put life back into the use of opinion letters. Qualcomm held, in deciding whether a company induced infringement, a jury should consider evidence that the company did not get an opinion letter from outside counsel.

Listen as our authoritative panel of intellectual property attorneys examines the standard for willful infringement and the use of opinion letters, waiver of the attorney–client privilege, and best practices for using opinions of counsel.

Outline

  1. Standard for willful infringement and use of opinions of counsel
    1. In re Seagate (Fed. Cir. 2007) and the objective recklessness standard
    2. Qualcomm v. Broadcom
    3. Importance of competent opinion of counsel in defending willful infringement allegations
    4. Reliance on opinions of counsel
    5. Updating opinions
    6. Changes in how opinions are used
  2. Court treatment
    1. Qualcomm v. Broadcom
    2. How the courts are applying Seagate
  3. Waiver
    1. Scope of discovery
    2. Privilege waiver for opinion counsel and trial counsel
    3. Privilege waiver for in-house counsel
    4. Other in-house personnel and in-house investigations
    5. Waiver of work product immunity
  4. Best practices post-Qualcomm and Seagate
    1. Implications for opinion of counsel practice
    2. Rethinking defending against willfulness claims
    3. No affirmative duty to get opinion, but proceed with caution if monitoring others’ patents
    4. When should corporate counsel now seek outside opinions to protect themselves from willful infringement claims?
    5. Cost-benefit analysis (cost of single opinion v. amount at stake in patent lawsuit)

Benefits

The panel will review these and other key questions:

  • How has the Federal Circuit's Qualcomm ruling impacted the use of opinion letters?
  • How can counsel reconcile the seemingly contradictory decisions in Seagate and Qualcomm?
  • What are the best practices for IP owners and their counsel in determining whether to use opinion letters?

Faculty

Mark P. Wine, Partner
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Irvine, Calif.

He has extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property litigation in a broad spectrum of business and industry. He has served as Lead Counsel in many patent infringement matters.

Sanford E. Warren, Jr., Partner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Dallas

He practices intellectual property litigation, including successful defense of patent infringement suits, in the medical device, electronic, chemical, semiconductor and telecommunications fields. He also manages worldwide trademark portfolios in the aviation, chemical and health fields.

John P. Hanish, Partner
Goodwin Procter, New York

He focuses on patent litigation, including significant work on patent infringement cases, patent licensing, and pre-litigation strategies related to patents and trade secrets. He has substantial trial and appellate experience in patent, trade secret and licensing disputes related to pharmaceutical compounds, biotechnology, medical devices, electronics and consumer products.

Ordering

Online CLE

Includes audio streaming of full program plus handouts (available 24 hours after live seminar).

CLE: Pre-approved for participatory or non-traditional/alternate format credit in: CA, HI*, NY*, WV*. Pre-approved for self-study credit in: AK, AZ, MO, MT, TX, VT, WA.
Upon request, also available in: CO, CT*, FL, GA, ID, KY, LA, ME, NC, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR*, SC, TN, UT, WI*, WY. If you are applying for credit in one of these states, make sure to select those states when placing your order.
(*Indicates that Strafford must report attendance.)

Online CLE Audio $149.00
Available 24 hours after the live event

How does this work?


Recorded Event

Includes full event recording plus handouts (available after live seminar).

CLE: Pre-approved for self-study credit in: AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, MO, MT, NY, TX, VT, WA, WV. Upon request, self-study credit is also available in: CO, FL, GA, ID, KY, ME, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, UT, WI, WY. If you are applying for self-study credit in one of these states, contact Strafford CLE at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35 or CLE@straffordpub.com.

MP3 Download (Audio Only) $49.00
Available 24 hours after the live event

How does this work?

CD $49.00 plus $9.45 S&H
Available ten business days after the live event

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

Program Materials

Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.

CLE Credit

Strafford's live seminars qualify for CLE in every state that accredits webinars. They offer you a high quality, cost effective, and convenient CLE option, with no lost travel time or expenses.

More Details>

Customer Reviews

I attend a lot of these lectures and Strafford's presentation addressed important issues I rarely hear about. I really learned something for a change.

Rebekah J. Poston

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey

All the speakers seemed extremely knowledgeable on the subject matter. Overall a very good seminar.

Stephan R. Silen

American AgCredit

Excellent topics, discussed very well.

McClure King

Dearborn National

This was my first experience with an interactive CLE.  It was good not to have to leave my office for the program.

Patricia Hays

Vestcom International

The back-and-forth between the panelists made the program easy to listen to. The slides were very well done.

Chris Kelly

Mayer Brown

Intellectual Property Law Advisory Board

Stephen R. Baird

Shareholder

Winthrop & Weinstine

Charles S. Baker

Partner

Fulbright & Jaworski

David S. Bloch

Partner

Winston & Strawn

Hung H. Bui

Partner

Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus

Ian N. Feinberg

Partner

Mayer Brown

Anthony J. Fitzpatrick

Partner

Duane Morris

Craig P. Opperman

Partner

Reed Smith

David Segal

Partner

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher

Jeffrey R. Seul

Partner

Holland + Knight

Astrid R. Spain

Partner

McDermott Will & Emery

Mark P. Wine

Partner

Orrick