Blog January 28, 2015
Respondents Entitled to Discovery From Complainants' Litigation Counsel Who Previously Served As Reexamination Counsel
- Person title
In the Matter of Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Sys., Prods. Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-926, Order No. 7 (Dec. 16, 2014) (J. Essex)
ALJ Essex denied Complainants Johnson Outdoors, Inc.'s and Johnson Outdoors Marine Electronics, Inc.'s motion to quash subpoenas served on the law firm of Fitzpatrick Cella Harper & Scinto, and three Fitzpatrick attorneys (collectively "Fitzpatrick Counsel"), who represent Complainants in the 926 Investigation.
Respondents Garmin International, Inc., Garmin North America, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Corporation subpoenaed Fitzpatrick Counsel who also represented Complainants in a prior litigation and reexamination proceeding involving the same patents asserted in the 926 Investigation. Complainants asserted each had information and/or documents from the reexamination proceeding that were relevant to Garmin's claim of inequitable conduct.
Complainants argued that the information sought—Fitzpatrick Counsel's knowledge and awareness of prior art, analyses and decisions related to a third party, and dealings with the third party itself—had minimal relevance to the dispute, was protected by attorney-client privilege/work-product doctrine, and was accessible via less intrusive means. The ALJ disagreed, finding "no real dispute as to the relevance of the information sought by Garmin." Order at 5. And, while at least some of the contents might be privileged, both Complainants' and Respondents' counsel were experienced attorneys "fully capable of proceeding with [such] discovery without compromising any privilege." Id. at 7. Moreover, Complainants' arguments that the information sought was available via third parties was unpersuasive as there existed information "uniquely in the hands of [Complainants'] reexamination counsel that [was] not available from other sources." Id. Finally, the ALJ noted that Complainants could not shield potentially harmful discovery "behind the cloak of privilege" because "the risk of having one's prosecution/reexamination counsel and litigation counsel be one in the same is a risk that Johnson Outdoors and Fitzpatrick Counsel willingly accepted in filing the instant investigation." Id. at 8-9.
Authors: Cherylyn Esoy Mizzo, Katherine Reardon
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Blog January 3, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Article December 9, 2022
Attorneys Adam Shartzer and Josh Carrigan Author Law360 Expert Analysis "Patent Fee-Shifting Often Leaves Prevailing Parties Unpaid"
Blog December 9, 2022
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2022
Blog November 1, 2022
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2022
Article October 20, 2022
Life Sciences Entrepreneur Sourcebook | Intellectual Property: What It Is and Why You Should Care
Article October 12, 2022