United States: New Privilege Considerations For Korean Patent Practitioners

In patent litigation cases involving foreign parties, issues on whether the attorney-client privilege applies to foreign IP professionals may arise during discovery. This analysis can be complex and fact-specific, and often depends on the specific court or the laws of the country from which the communication originated. With respect to Korea, relatively recent developments in the law and procedure may affect how the courts in the United States analyze attorney-client privilege issues with respect to Korean IP professionals and also provide additional guidance that Korean companies should consider when implementing policies to protect privileged communications. In addition, the recent recognition of patent agent privilege provides another, albeit riskier, potential option to protect certain communications within the scope of the privilege.

U.S. Patent Agent Privilege

Last year in In re Queen's University at Kingston,1 the Federal Circuit resolved a split in the district courts and recognized the existence of a limited patent agent privilege. Relying on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the Federal Circuit reasoned that Congress authorized non-attorney patent agents to engage in the practice of law before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and that clients have a reasonable expectation that all communications with patent agents relating to patentability and preparing a patent application will be privileged. Although the court recognized this new privilege for U.S. patent agents, it limited its scope to only those communications necessary to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications before the USPTO or other USPTO proceedings in which the patent agent is authorized to participate.2 Examples of patent agent communications that would not be considered privileged include opinions on the validity of another party's patent in contemplation of litigation, the sale or purchase of a patent, and infringement.3

While the Federal Circuit's recognition of patent agent privilege is welcome news to patent agents and their clients, caution should be exercised in relying on this privilege because the scope and applicability of the privilege remains limited and uncertain in some circumstances. For example, in one of two cases that have since analyzed the In re Queen's decision, the Texas Court of Appeals declined to recognize the patent agent privilege on the basis that In re Queen's was not binding precedent because the case at issue was a breach of contract action governed by Texas law, not patent law.4 Thus, to the extent the patent agent privilege applies, at least one court has held that it is only applicable "if the case involves substantive issues of patent law."5

In general, litigants should not expect In re Queen's to alter the established analytical framework based on choice of law, which currently governs the application of attorney-client privilege for foreign IP professionals. But the case could nevertheless potentially affect the outcome of whether a particular communication is deemed privileged. For instance, in a communication with a foreign patent agent involving a U.S. patent application, under traditional choice of law analysis, courts have held that U.S. privilege law would apply, and prior to In re Queen's, the communication would not be privileged unless the foreign patent agent was acting under the authority and control of an attorney barred in the United States.6 With the creation of the patent agent privilege, however, the same facts may not necessarily result in the same finding. It is possible that some courts may consider a communication with a foreign patent agent involving a U.S. patent application privileged, even without the involvement of an attorney. On the other hand, other courts may find that while In re Queen's recognizes a limited patent agent privilege for United States patent agents, it does not with respect to foreign patent agents, and find no privilege, unless the foreign patent agent was acting under the authority of a U.S. attorney or a U.S. patent agent.

Until additional cases shed light on what impact In re Queen's will have on how U.S. courts treat privilege issues involving foreign patent agents, there is risk and uncertainty in relying solely on In re Queen's to protect communications with a foreign patent agent. A safer course would be to expect the traditional choice of law analysis to continue to govern. This means that if a communication is deemed to concern a foreign matter, privilege will generally apply to the extent the foreign country's law protects a communication from disclosure.7 Nevertheless, given the additional rationale for privilege under In re Queen's, there will likely be an increase of privilege assertions over any communications with a U.S. patent agent and foreign patent agents because the argument in support of such privilege may have become stronger. With respect to choice-of-law analysis for Korea, recent developments in Korean law and procedure create additional uncertainty for privilege claims for Korean IP professionals.

Discovery and Privilege in Korea

To determine privilege matters implicating the substantive foreign law of countries with more restrictive discovery than the United States, such as Korea, courts have considered a blend of the foreign country's substantive and procedural law. For example, in Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm. Inc.,8 the court determined that communications between the plaintiff's employees and in-house legal counsel were governed by Korean law.9 The court then found that Korean substantive law did not provide for attorney-client privilege or work product protection and the communications were therefore not protected from disclosure on those bases.10 But rather than order the plaintiff to produce the documents, the court recognized that Korea's restrictive discovery rules would not have compelled the production of those documents in the first instance.11 Recognizing the incongruity of producing documents that were protected from disclosure under U.S. law as privileged and unobtainable under Korean law because of restrictive discovery rules, the court applied U.S. law to the documents, even though they did not "touch base" with the United States, as would typically be required.12 The court noted that ending the inquiry in the absence of Korea's attorney-client privilege and work product provisions and not taking into account Korea's "vastly different discovery practices, which permit only minimal discovery," would violate principles of comity and offend public policy.13 On that basis, the court deemed the documents privileged and protected from discovery.14

The court in Astra therefore shielded from disclosure documents that Korean substantive law otherwise did not protect because of Korea's limited discovery provisions. Since Astra, however, the combination of a Korean Supreme Court case finding for the first time that broad attorney-client privilege does not exist in Korea and recent amendments broadening the scope of discovery in Korea suggests that the scope of protection afforded to communications implicating Korean law may have narrowed.

About 10 years after the Astra ruling, the Korean Supreme Court found that Korean law does not provide for broad U.S. style attorney-client privilege.15 While the court in Astra held that Korean statutes did not provide for broad attorney-client privilege or work product protection, the Korean Supreme Court case is important because the highest court in Korea, not a U.S. court, affirmatively stated for the first time that such protections do not exist under Korean law, which will make it very unlikely that a court in the United States will make a different finding regarding Korean law.16 Instead, Korean law excuses certain professionals, including attorneys and patent agents from producing documents containing or testifying regarding confidential information received from a client.17 Only the professional, and not the client, can invoke this right.18 Also, the obligation is excused only with respect to information received by an attorney, and not transmitted from an attorney to a client.19

Korea also recently amended its Patent Act to significantly expand the scope of discovery in patent litigation.20 The Korean Patent Court issued new rules and procedures modeled after the local patent rules of U.S. federal district courts, which explain the discovery scheme in more detail.21 Under this new amendment, which took effect on June 30, 2016, the court can now order the submission of documents or materials necessary for proving infringement and assessing damages.22 Moreover, litigants previously faced hurdles in even obtaining the requested discovery to prove infringement because the accused party could avoid production or adverse inferences by asserting that the requested materials contained trade secrets or by simply not producing the requested materials.23 The new amendment, however, expressly allows a court to make an adverse inference against the accused infringer if the requested materials are not produced and the requesting party would otherwise have difficulty proving infringement without the requested documents.24 The new amendment also expands the scope of discovery to "materials" instead of just documents, thereby expanding discovery to include information contained in media such as videos, pictures, or other electronic forms.25 Thus, these new discovery rules represent a significant expansion of Korea's discovery provisions in patent cases.

These two developments suggest that prospective litigants should carefully consider privilege issues that may arise when dealing with Korean attorneys, patent agents, and other IP professionals. Although the court in Astra recognized the absence of broad attorney-client privilege under Korean law, it ultimately protected documents from disclosure based on the restricted discovery practice in Korea. In view of the recent expansion of the Korean discovery rules, other courts may not reach the same conclusion, even if the documents would otherwise be shielded from discovery as privileged under U.S. law. Moreover, to the extent that courts agrees with the Astra court and find that U.S. privilege law should apply, even with Korea's expanded discovery rules, it is unclear how courts will deal with the newly recognized patent agent privilege created by In re Queen's in the context of Korean patent agents.

Given the lack of clarity in certain areas of privilege regarding foreign IP professionals and the changes to Korean law and rules since Astra, it now seems more important than ever to involve U.S. attorneys in matters connected to U.S. IP issues to benefit from the protections of privilege. With the Korean Supreme Court expressly rejecting the existence of attorney-client privilege under Korean law and the amendments to the Korean Patent Act expanding the scope of discovery in patent cases, a Korean litigant in a U.S. court may find it more difficult to convince the court that privilege should apply under Korean law. Under these circumstances, involving U.S. attorneys in U.S. related matters, particularly in a supervisory role, is still one of the most predictable ways to maintain the protection of privilege. With the In re Queen's decision, there is now an option to include a U.S. patent agent as well, but reliance on the patent agent privilege alone is riskier because the scope of protection is limited only to proceedings before the USPTO. Moreover, some courts may refuse to recognize the patent agent privilege based on the specifics of the case, like the Texas Court of Appeals in In re Singer. Accordingly, until case law in this area is further developed, the use of a U.S. attorney still remains one of the safer and tested ways to ensure the protections of privilege.

Footnotes

1 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

2 Id. at 1301-02.

3 Id.

4 In re Silver, 500 S.W.3d 644, 646-47 (Tex. App. August 17, 2016).

5 Id. at 646-47.

6 See In re Rivastigmine Patent Litigation, 237 F.R.D. 69, 74 (S.D.NY. Aug. 8, 2006) (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., No. 95 Civ. 8833, 1998 WL 158958, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 2, 1998)).

7 See, e.g., Lincoln Elec. Co. v. Esab Grp., Inc., No. 2:15-CV-1404, 2016 WL 6804861, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2016); 2M Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Netmass, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-215, 2007 WL 666987, at *2-*3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2007); Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 92, 98-99 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

8 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

9 Id. at 99.

10 Id. at 100-01.

11 Id. at 101-02.

12 Id. at 102.

13 Id.

14 Id. at 104-05.

15 Young Seok Lee & Sae Youn Kim, New Korean Supreme Court Case Finds That Broad Attorney-Client Privilege Does Not Exist in Korea, Yulchon IDR News Alert, May 2012, available at https://www.yulchon.com/mail/201205/IDR/IDR-ENG_0522.html.

16 Id.

17 See Astra, 208 F.R.D. at 100-01.

18 Id.

19 Id. at 101.

20 Yulchon LLC, Korea Finally Puts Some Teeth into Its Discovery Rules An - Executive Summary and Analysis of Significant Updates to the Korean Patent Act and Korean Trademark Act, Lexology, June 29, 2016, available at http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1a443b07-0397-443d-a531-d5ad069751aa.

21 Min Son, South Korea: Patent Court Procedure Guidelines Published in English and Japanese, Managing Intellectual Property, Nov. 1, 2016, available at http://www.managingip.com/Article/3604007/South-Korea-Patent-Court-procedure-guidelines-published-in-English-and-Japanese.html.

22 Yulchon LLC, supra note 20.

23 Young Hwan Yang, Raymis H. Kim, Kyoung-Soo Jin, & Hyung Won Chae, Significant Changes to the Korean Patent Act, A Quarterly Update of Korean IP Law & Policy, Spring 2016, at 2, available at http://www.kimchang.com/newsletter/201604/en/img/KIM%20&%20CHANG%20IP%20Newsletter_Spring%202016.pdf.

24 Id.

25 Yulchon LLC, supra note 20.

Originally published in Law360 March 6, 2017

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
2 Nov 2017, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

Join us for a two-part webinar series exploring recent developments in machine learning and other technologies that have greatly advanced artificial intelligence (AI) since its origins more than 50 years ago.

9 Nov 2017, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

As part of Strafford Publications’ webinar series, Finnegan attorneys Adriana Burgy, Chris Johns, and Kai Rajan will discuss the Examiner Count System and provide strategies for interacting with examiners.

15 Nov 2017, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the second annual Digital Media & IP Forum, hosted by World Congress.

 
In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.