USPTO Seeks Input on Patent Privilege Issues

03 February 2015 PharmaPatents Blog

The USPTO is seeking public comment on patent privilege issues, regarding the legal protections afforded to communications between patent practitioners and clients in the U.S. and foreign countries. The USPTO is hosting a roundtable to discuss these issues on February 18, 2015 at its Alexandria, Virginia campus.

The Privilege Issues

According to the January 26, 2015 Federal Register Notice, the USPTO is seeking input on the following issues:

  • Whether and to what extent U.S. courts should recognize privilege for communications between foreign patent practitioners and their clients.
  • The extent to which communications between U.S. patent applicants and their non-attorney U.S. patent agents should be privileged in U.S. courts.
  • Whether and to what extent communications between U.S. patent practitioners and their clients should receive privilege in foreign jurisdictions.

The Federal Register Notice notes that U.S. jurisdictions are inconsistent with regard to their treatment of communications with foreign patent practitioners and non-attorney U.S. patent agents, and that the privilege laws (or professional secrecy obligations) of foreign countries vary by statute and common law.

The Federal Register Notice hints that one purpose behind this information-gathering may relate to ”the possibility of developing an international minimum standard for recognizing privileged communications between clients and patent practitioners,” which has been considered “by the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).” Information on U.S. and foreign laws have been compiled in WIPO document SCP/20/9, ‘‘Confidentiality of Communications between Clients and their Patent Advisors: Compilation of Laws, Practices and other Information,’’ which you can find here. A proposed international framework for patent privilege prepared by U.S. and European organizations can be found here.

Questions For Comment

The USPTO seeks written comments (by February 25, 2015) on the following specific questions:

  1. Please explain the impact, if any, resulting from inconsistent treatment of privilege rules among U.S. federal courts. In your answer, please identify if the impact is on communications with foreign, domestic, or both types of patent practitioners.
  2. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by a national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege for communications with U.S. patent agents, including potential benefits and costs. If you believe such a standard would be beneficial, please explain what the scope of a national standard should cover.
  3. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by a national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege for communications with foreign patent practitioners, including potential benefits and costs. If you believe such a standard would be beneficial, please explain what the scope of a standard should cover.
  4. Please explain how U.S. stakeholders would be impacted by an international framework establishing minimum privilege standards in the courts of member countries for communications with patent practitioners in other jurisdictions, including potential benefits and costs. If you believe such a framework would be beneficial, please also address the following issues:
    a. Please identify which jurisdictions have potential problems and explain the exact nature of the problem in each of those jurisdictions.
    b. Please explain what the scope of an international framework for privilege standards should cover. An example of such a framework can be found in Appendix 5 of this document here.
  5. If a national standard for U.S. courts to recognize privilege for U.S. patent agents or foreign practitioners would be beneficial, please explain how that standard should be established.
    a. If Federal legislation would be appropriate, what should such legislation encompass? Please consider whether the Federal tax preparer-client privilege legislation, which statutorily extended attorney-client privilege to non-lawyer practitioners (e.g., certified public accountants) under 26 U.S.C. 7525(a), is an appropriate model and explain why or why not. Are there any noteworthy parallels or differences between Federally-registered accountants and Federally-registered patent agents in either policy or operation?

The USPTO asks commenters “to include information identifying … whether they are patent attorneys, agents, owners, licensees, or any other type of entity,” so the USPTO can better understand how they are impacted by patent privilege issues.

Please refer to the Federal Register Notice for detailed information on how to submit written comments or request to speak at the roundtable.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Will Other Tech Companies Join Microsoft in Honoring CCPA Across the U.S.?
18 November 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Get Off My Lawn! Employers Gain Expanded Rights to Keep Unions Away from Their Property
18 November 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Debunking Conventional Labor and Employment Wisdom
18 November 2019
Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
Racing to Innovate: The OESA’s 2019 Industry Outlook Panel
14 November 2019
Dashboard Insights
PATH Summit 2019
18-20 December 2019
Arlington, VA
Madison CLE Days
18-19 December 2019
Madison, WI
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call