December 1, 2017
CIPA Journal
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a final rule establishing that communications between clients and U.S. patent agents or foreign patent practitioners will be afforded the same privilege protections in trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)1 as communications between clients and U.S. attorneys.2 Before this rule, no explicit rule governed the protections afforded to communications between clients and US patent agents or foreign patent practitioners in PTAB trials. Instead, administrative law judges presiding over the PTAB trials determined whether communications were privileged on a case-by-case basis according to the Federal Rules of Evidence and common law. But the common law on privilege protections afforded to such communications varies among jurisdictions, causing administrative inefficiencies and inconsistent outcomes. The USPTO’s final rule seeks to address these issues.
The USPTO explained that attorney-client privilege exists to protect clients and to allow them to have "full and frank" discussions with their attorneys without fear that those discussions will be discoverable in legal proceedings.3 Both US patent attorneys and agents are authorized to represent clients before the USPTO,4 and the final rule recognizes that "clients deserve the same protections regardless of which type of authorized legal provider they choose."5 Moreover, certain foreign jurisdictions rely entirely or almost entirely on non-attorney patent practitioners. The final rule thus seeks to protect communications between clients and US patent agents or foreign patent practitioners when, for example, seeking a patent before the USPTO or a foreign patent office.
Communications will be privileged only if "reasonably necessary and incident to” the scope of the U.S. patent agent’s or foreign patent practitioner’s authority.6 For example, communications between clients and U.S. patent agents relating to trials before the USPTO would be privileged, whereas communications between these parties relating to trials before the U.S. district courts may not be privileged.7 Moreover, the final rule applies only to foreign patent practitioners who are authorized to provide legal advice on patent matters within their home jurisdiction.8
The USPTO’s rule goes into effect on 7 December 2017, and will be codified as 37 C.F.R. §42.57:
§42.57 Privilege for patent practitioners.
Originally printed in CIPA Journal in December 2017. 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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.