Privilege in IP Litigation: Overcoming Challenges in Review, Applicability to Foreign Attorneys, Disclosure
Recording of a 90-minute premium CLE webinar with Q&A
This CLE course will guide IP counsel on the unique challenges related to privilege in IP litigation. The panel will discuss how the courts have treated the issue of privilege in IP litigation and address privilege review and the applicability to documents involving non-U.S. attorneys. The panel will also examine disclosure and offer best practices for protecting the privilege.
Outline
- Privilege review
- What is the privilege
- Multiple defendants and common interest doctrine
- Communications involving non-U.S. counsel
- Document and information review
- Procedures
- Inadvertent disclosure
- Clawback provisions
- Practical strategies for reviewing documents and protecting privilege during IP litigation (and prior to litigation)
Benefits
The panel will review these and other high priority issues:
- What challenges do counsel face when dealing with multiple defendants and non-U.S. counsel?
- What steps should counsel take to increase the likelihood that communications among defendants or involving foreign counsel are protected?
- What processes should counsel have in place during privilege review to minimize disclosure of protected information?
Faculty
Sybil L. Dunlop
Partner
Greene Espel
Ms. Dunlop helps clients resolve complex commercial and intellectual property disputes. She is a passionate advocate... | Read More
Ms. Dunlop helps clients resolve complex commercial and intellectual property disputes. She is a passionate advocate with first-chair trial and arbitration experience. Ms. Dunlop advises Fortune 100 clients as they navigate disputes with contractors, clients, and business partners, including post-transaction disputes involving net working capital or post-closing adjustments. She also represents clients before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including the first patent owner to score a complete victory in a covered business method proceeding. Ms. Dunlop presents to audiences across the nation about federal practice, discovery, and legal writing.
Close
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Partner
Oblon McClelland Maier & Neustadt
As lead litigation counsel, Mr. McIntyre represents plaintiffs and defendants through all phases of patent infringement... | Read More
As lead litigation counsel, Mr. McIntyre represents plaintiffs and defendants through all phases of patent infringement actions in a variety of technologies well-suited for his degrees in chemistry and biology, such as cosmetics, steel, chemical manufacturing processes, polymer extrusions for automobile windshields, and pharmaceuticals. Mr. McIntyre’s combined experience in litigation and patent prosecution not only provides him with unique insight into litigation positions such as, the successful Markman position concerning interpretation of “consisting essentially of” in L’Oréal v. Merck/Johnson & Johnson and the novel Section 102(g) argument in Solvay v. Honeywell, but also allows him to translate lessons learned in the courtroom into prosecution techniques resulting in stronger patents.
Close
Maxwell J. Petersen
Partner
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
Mr. Petersen is a patent attorney with over 25 years of highly diversified experience and a chemical engineering... | Read More
Mr. Petersen is a patent attorney with over 25 years of highly diversified experience and a chemical engineering background. His experience includes over a dozen patent infringement lawsuits, interferences, inter partes reviews, inter partes and ex parte reexaminations, reissues, and other complex USPTO proceedings. Mr. Petersen has practiced in a wide variety of technical fields, including chemical and petrochemical processes, polymer science, gas technology, membrane separation, nonwoven fabrics, absorbent articles, plastic films, plastic and paper laminates, steel alloys, refractory materials, digital televisions, cellular telephones, wastewater treatment, and particleboard manufacturing. Mr. Petersen’s practice includes a specialty in the USPTO trial proceedings under the America Invents Act.
Close