Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
and Work-Product Immunity
In In re EchoStar Commc'ns Corp., Misc. Nos. 803, 805, 2006 WL 1149528 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2006), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified the extent to which a party waives its attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity when it asserts the advice-of-counsel defense in response to a charge of willful patent infringement. The Federal Circuit directed a Texas district court to vacate an order compelling EchoStar Communications Corp. to produce certain Merchant & Gould law firm documents that were never communicated to EchoStar.
In this case, TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar for willful infringement of U.S. Patent 6,233,389. In response to the allegation of willful infringement, EchoStar relied on the advice-of-counsel defense based on advice provided by in-house counsel prior to the filing of the lawsuit. After the action was filed, EchoStar obtained additional advice from Merchant & Gould, but did not rely on it. TiVo sought production of documents in the possession of EchoStar and Merchant & Gould. The district court found that EchoStar had waived its attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity relating to advice of any counsel, including Merchant & Gould. The district court also indicated that the scope of the waiver included communications made either before or after the filing of the complaint and any work product, whether or not the product was communicated to EchoStar. In response, Echostar petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?