• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
    • AIA Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • IP FDA Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Articles
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
  • Events
  • Webinars
  • Books

Article

Common Interest Privilege Did Not Shield Merger and Acquisition Information From Discovery in Delaware Litigation

February 10, 2021

LES Insights

By John C. Paul; D. Brian Kacedon; Anthony D. Del Monaco; Cecilia Sanabria; Richard Hildreth III

Abstract

A Delaware court permitted discovery about an acquisition agreement, finding a non‑binding pre-acquisition letter of intent did not provide parties with the requisite shared legal interest that would justify the confidentiality afforded by the common interest privilege.


Background

10x Genomics sued Celsee for patent infringement in Delaware. While the case was pending, Bio-Rad Laboratories acquired Celsee and the acquisition agreement included provisions related to the pending litigation.

10x Genomics sought to obtain information about communications between Celsee and Bio-Rad that occurred after a non‑binding letter of intent to engage in acquisition negotiations was signed. Relying on the common interest privilege and the work product doctrine, Celsee refused to provide that information and 10x Genomics moved to compel.

The 10x Genomics Decision

The common interest privilege extends the attorney-client privilege to shield from disclosure information that is shared amongst parties having a common legal cause.  Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients. For example, multiple, unrelated defendants in a litigation will enter into a joint defense agreement to allow them to coordinate their defenses without concern of those communications being discoverable.

Here, Celsee failed to establish or even contend it and Bio-Rad shared an identical legal interest. The communications between Celsee and Bio-Rad were not made for the purpose of securing, advancing, or supplying legal representation, but rather for negotiating a commercial transaction from opposite sides of the table. Although Celsee and Bio-Rad signed a letter of intent, it was non-binding, and the acquisition still needed due diligence review, a definitive agreement, and further approvals. The letter was also not a joint defense letter nor did it result in Bio-Rad assuming liability for infringement. Thus, the court found the non-binding letter did not create the requisite shared legal interest that would justify the confidentiality afforded by the common interest privilege.

To support its position, Celsee primarily relied on the California case Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., where common interest privilege was found to protect a lawyer's patent opinion letter the defendant had previously shared with a prospective buyer. Hewlett-Packard's chief concern was the effect that a broad application of waiver might have on the sort of business transaction where the defendant and prospective buyer were engaged.

While some courts have adopted this expansive view of the common interest doctrine from Hewlett-Packard, the vast majority of courts have declined to adopt that view. Here, the court rejected the reasoning from Hewlett-Packard for two reasons:

First, encouraging more openness in business transactions did not advance the common interest privilege's purpose of encouraging full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients. Parties in merger and acquisition negotiations would invariably retain counsel to ensure that their own interests, and not those of the other party, were protected. Any communications with such counsel would already be protected by attorney-client privilege.

Second, the court expressed concern about the impact that such an extension of the common interest privilege would have on truth seeking in criminal and civil proceedings. It found the individual interest in the confidentiality of merger and acquisition negotiations was not sufficiently substantial to outweigh the public interest in the search for truth.

On that basis, the court ordered Celsee to produce documents and a witness for deposition regarding communications between Celsee and Bio-Rad about 10x's lawsuit and the provisions in the acquisition agreement concerning 10x's lawsuit. It exempted any documents or testimony would directly reveal the mental impressions of Celsee's attorneys.

Strategy and Conclusion

Communications during negotiations of merger or acquisition can later become discoverable in litigation. The common interest privilege varies by jurisdiction, so communications that are protected in one jurisdiction may be discoverable in another.

Further Information

The 10x Genomics decision can be found here.

Tags

infringement, attorney-client privilege, privilege, District of Delaware

Related Practices

Patent Litigation

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Biotechnology

Related Professionals

 John_Paul
John C. Paul
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4109
Email
D_Brian_Kacedon
D. Brian Kacedon
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4301
Email
Anthony_Del_Monaco
Anthony D. Del Monaco
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4023
Email
Cecilia_Sanabria
Cecilia Sanabria
Partner
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4478
Email
Richard Hildreth III
Associate
Washington, D.C.
+1 202 408 4327
Email

Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.

Related Insights

Conference

Best Practices in Intellectual Property 2021

June 14-15, 2021

Tel Aviv

Seminar

12th Annual Ethics in the Practice of Intellectual Property Law Seminar

June 4, 2021

Virtual

Conference

Digital Health Show

June 2, 2021

Virtual

Conference

LESI Virtual Annual Conference

May 27-28, 2021

Virtual

Conference

IPTA 2021 Annual Conference

May 26-29, 2021

Darwin

Webinar

Patent Law Institute 2021: Critical Issues & Best Practices

April 29-30, 2021

Webinar

Conference

IPOwners Spring Summit

April 20-21, 2021

Webinar

Update on Subject-Matter Eligibility at the EPO and USPTO For Life Sciences

April 15, 2021

Webinar

Webinar

Patent Law Institute 2021: Critical Issues & Best Practices

April 1-2, 2021

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve recently updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP