note a guide to waiver after echostar and seagate - UW Law School
note a guide to waiver after echostar and seagate - UW Law School
note a guide to waiver after echostar and seagate - UW Law School
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
BELDEN - FINAL 11/29/2007 4:08 PM<br />
944 WISCONSIN LAW REVIEW<br />
at<strong>to</strong>rney-client privilege <strong>and</strong> work-product protection was unclear prior<br />
<strong>to</strong> EchoStar further complicated the alleged infringer’s dilemma. 88<br />
Because the scope of the <strong>waiver</strong> was unclear, the alleged infringer did<br />
not know exactly what information it would be sacrificing if it chose <strong>to</strong><br />
assert the advice-of-counsel defense. 89<br />
B. Precedent Regarding the Scope of Waiver<br />
Prior <strong>to</strong> EchoStar, the Federal Circuit provided remarkably little<br />
guidance on the scope of <strong>waiver</strong> of at<strong>to</strong>rney-client privilege <strong>and</strong> workproduct<br />
protection upon assertion of the advice-of-counsel defense. This<br />
lack of guidance likely reflects, at least in part, the difficulty defendants<br />
experience in attempting <strong>to</strong> obtain appellate review of district court<br />
rulings regarding the scope of <strong>waiver</strong>. 90 Furthermore, the Federal<br />
Circuit is the only source of appellate guidance regarding the scope of<br />
<strong>waiver</strong> because it has exclusive jurisdiction over substantive issues of<br />
patent law, 91 <strong>and</strong> the scope of <strong>waiver</strong> is one such issue. 92 Therefore, the<br />
district courts have largely been on their own in determining the<br />
appropriate scope of <strong>waiver</strong> when the defendant invokes the advice-ofcounsel<br />
defense <strong>to</strong> willful patent infringement. As a result, the district<br />
courts have varied widely in their approaches <strong>to</strong> the scope of <strong>waiver</strong>,<br />
<strong>and</strong> at<strong>to</strong>rneys <strong>and</strong> their clients have been uncertain about how broad the<br />
scope of <strong>waiver</strong> will be in any given case. 93<br />
the <strong>to</strong>tality-of-the-circumstances test for willful infringement, <strong>and</strong> therefore the choice<br />
the alleged infringer faces is still a very difficult one.<br />
88. See Jared Goff, Comment, The Unpredictable Scope of the Waiver<br />
Resulting from the Advice-of-Counsel Defense <strong>to</strong> Willful Patent Infringement, 1998<br />
BYU L. REV. 213, 213–14 (1998).<br />
89. See Vi<strong>to</strong> J. DeBari, Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Advice-Of-Counsel<br />
Waiver, THE METROPOLITAN CORP. COUNS., June 2006, at 10, available at http://<br />
www.metrocorpcounsel.com/pdf/2006/June/10.pdf.<br />
90. See Goff supra <strong>note</strong> 88, at 222–23. Rulings regarding the scope of <strong>waiver</strong><br />
are discovery rulings <strong>and</strong> are interlocu<strong>to</strong>ry in nature. Id. at 222. Interlocu<strong>to</strong>ry appeals<br />
are extremely difficult <strong>to</strong> obtain; ordinarily, a final ruling must be issued before the<br />
case is ripe for appeal. Id. At that point, the appeal is largely moot because the<br />
privileged information has already been released. Id. Furthermore, the only other<br />
method of relief is <strong>to</strong> petition for a writ of m<strong>and</strong>amus, <strong>and</strong>, like interlocu<strong>to</strong>ry appeals,<br />
writs of m<strong>and</strong>amus are rarely granted. Id.<br />
91. In re EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2006)<br />
(citing Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 265 F.3d 1294, 1303<br />
(Fed. Cir. 2001)).<br />
92. EchoStar, 448 F.3d at 1298 (citing In re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.,<br />
203 F.3d 800, 803–04 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).<br />
93. See, e.g., Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. E’Lite Optik, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d<br />
1084, 1091–96 (D. Nev. 2003); Thorn EMI N. Am., Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 837<br />
F. Supp. 616, 622–23 (D. Del. 1993).