Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

IP News

By Compiled by Eric Agovino
May 31, 2006

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions Image

UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?