直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Recognizes Patent-Agent Privilege

March 15, 2016

Authored and Edited by Jennifer M. Vein; Elizabeth D. Ferrill; Aaron Gleaton Clay

In In re Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 2015-145 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2016), the Federal Circuit acknowledged a patent-agent privilege covering client communications with non-attorney patent agents in the course of agents’ authorized practice before the USPTO.

During discovery in a patent infringement suit with Samsung, Queen’s University asserted privilege over communications with its patent agents. The district court granted Samsung’s motion to compel those documents because the agents were not attorneys and thus not protected by the attorney-client privilege. Queen’s University petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, and the Court granted review on the issue of whether a patent-agent privilege existed.

Overcoming the presumption against recognizing new privileges, the Court justified an independent patent-agent privilege. The Court reasoned that the privilege should be recognized in part because patent agents hold unique roles whose activities the Supreme Court has construed as constituting the practice of law, Congress has authorized that practice, and current realities of patent litigation support the privilege. However, the Court held that the privilege extends only to communications reasonably necessary and incident to prosecuting patents before the USPTO. The Court remanded for the district court to assess the asserted privilege claims under the scope of the privilege set forth in the Court’s opinion.

Tags

privilege

Related Practices

Patent Drafting and Prosecution

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Reception

2026 IPO Education Foundation Awards Dinner

December 15, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Seminar

Future IP UK

October 21, 2026

London

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – New York

September 28-29, 2026

New York

Conference

2026 IPO Annual Meeting

September 27-29, 2026

Toronto

Conference

IAM Live: SEP Summit Global 2026

September 9-10, 2026

London

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

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP