November 17, 2017

November 16, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 15, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

November 14, 2017

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

USPTO Publishes New Rule Governing Privilege for Patent Attorneys and Agents

Earlier this week, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a new rule governing when privilege exists for communications between clients and their domestic or foreign patent attorneys and patent agents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).   For context, the originally proposed amendment sought to resolve ambiguity as to when privilege extends to USPTO patent practitioners during PTAB discovery proceedings in light of prior Federal CircuitDistrict Court and PTAB decisions.  The now-published rule codifies the PTAB’s intent to protect communications between patent agents and clients from discovery, stating that:

“communication[s] between a client and a USPTO patent practitioner or a foreign patent practitioner that is reasonably necessary and incident to the scope of the patent practitioner’s authority shall receive the same protections of privilege under Federal law as if that communication were between a client and an attorney authorized to practice in the United States, including all limitations and exceptions[;]”

“USPTO patent practitioners and foreign jurisdiction patent practitioners shall receive the same treatment as attorneys on all issues affecting privilege or waiver, such as communications with employees or assistants of the practitioner and communications between multiple practitioners.”

82 Fed. Reg. 51575 (Nov. 7, 2017).  In addition to the newly-minted rule, responses to solicited comments throughout the rule-making process provide guidance as to how the rule will be applied.  As is made clear by the supplementary information, an important distinction between the proposed amendment and finalized rule is that “[p]atent practitioner” now comprises both USPTO patent practitioners and foreign jurisdiction patent practitioners.  Id. at 51570-51575.  The supplementary information also indicates that (1) privilege only protects information exchanged for purposes of obtaining legal opinions or services, not underlying facts or business documents; and (2) functions that agents are authorized to perform before the USPTO are delineated in CFR 11.5(b)(1).  Id.

When the rule takes effect on December 7, 2017, subject to the supplementary guidelines, communications between patent agents and their respective clients will be protected in post grant proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings.  As such, the rule provides much-needed guidance to the boundaries of privilege within the context of client communications between USPTO patent practitioners, as well as foreign jurisdiction patent practitioners, before the PTAB.

©1994-2017 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Matthew C. Hurley, Intellectual Property Attorney, Mintz Levin Law Firm
Member

Matt is the Section Head for the Intellectual Property Section at Mintz Levin. He is a trial lawyer who represents companies in complex business disputes in federal and state courts throughout the country and before arbitration panels.

The primary focus of Matt’s practice is the representation of life sciences companies in disputes involving collaboration agreements, patent licenses, supplier agreements, and distribution contracts.  Matt has a deep understanding of the legal and business issues that arise in the life sciences industry and vast...

617-348-4939
Matthew S. Galica, Mintz Levin, Technology Specialist, Software Development lawyer, Application architect, Attorney
Technology Specialist

Matthew’s work is focused on enterprise-level data management and software development. He has worked with clients including Fresenius Medical Care, Raytheon, Bose, Jabil Circuits, and CAT Global Mining.

Before joining Mintz Levin, Matthew was a technology consultant and application architect for a technology corporation in the Boston area. There, he configured and implemented software and worked with product and business development teams. He has previously worked as an intern with a power company, where his efforts were focused on the use of alternative fuel sources, and also with Worcester Polytechnic Institute, where he performed research surrounding molten alloy composition detection via x-ray fluorescence.

617.348.4859
Associate

Tony is an Associate in the firm’s Boston office. He has worked with a wide range of technologies including manufacturing, telecommunications, and software development.

Tony’s experience includes assisting in the preparation of patent applications and pre-suit diligence, including patent portfolio analysis; drafting infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity analyses; and providing technical and scientific advice to legal practitioners in ITC-337 investigations and US District Court matters. During law school, Tony served as the production editor of the Journal of...

617-348-1778