A Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) was published in the Federal Register yesterday, October 18, 2016. Located at 81 FR 71653 (a copy of which is available here), the NPRM proposes to expand the scope of attorney-client privilege to non-attorneys in certain proceedings before the Patent Office.[1]
In the United States, both attorneys and non-attorneys may be licensed to practice before the Patent Office at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).[2] See 37 CFR § 11.7 (admission to practice before the highest court of any state is not a requirement). Attorneys admitted to the USPTO Patent Bar are ‘patent attorneys’ while non-lawyers admitted to the Patent Bar are ‘patent agents’. Patent agents are permitted to represent clients in a variety of proceedings before the Patent Office, including post grant reviews and inter partes reexaminations before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
Attorney-client privilege is designed to encourage the full and frank sharing of information between a client and their attorney. There is no national standard for the attorney-client privilege; each state has enacted its own statute and/or rule (with accompanying interpretive caselaw) while the federal courts have their own rule as well (Federal Rule of Evidence 508). Each jurisdiction has its own standards and rules – in some jurisdictions the privilege is broader than others.
The lack of uniformity has resulted in a problem at the Patent Office: are communications between a patent agent and their client protected by attorney-client privilege? Previously, this question has been answered on an ad hoc, case-by-case basis. In August 2015 the USPTO published a proposed rule amending the rules for trial practice before the Patent Office. See 80 FR 50719. In that publication the USPTO solicited “on the advisability of a privilege rule for PTAB proceedings.” Id. The universal response was a privilege rule is needed.
The current NPRM is the result of those comments. The proposed rule would amend 37 CFR §42.57 to add
- (a) Privileged communications. A communication between a client and a domestic or foreign patent practitioner that is reasonably necessary or incident to the scope of the patent practitioner's authority shall receive the same protections of privilege as if that communication were between a client and an attorney authorized to practice in the United States, including all limitations and exceptions.
- (b) Definitions. The term “domestic patent practitioner” means a person who is registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to practice before the agency under section 11.6. “Foreign patent practitioner” means a person who is authorized to provide legal advice on patent matters in a foreign jurisdiction, provided that the jurisdiction establishes professional qualifications and the practitioner satisfies them, and regardless of whether that jurisdiction provides privilege or an equivalent under its laws.
The NPRM would clarify the privilege rule and create confidence that communications with a patent agent are entitled to protection at the USPTO. It will also raise a question of whether state or federal courts would respect the privilege if it was invoked to resist discovery in a case pending outside of the Patent Office and/or the PTAB.
Comments are being solicited until December 19, 2016, and can be submitted by electronic mail to acprivilege@uspto.gov, via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, or via mail to Mail Stop OPIA Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450, marked to the attention of “Soma Saha, Patent Attorney, Patent Trial Proposed Rule on Privilege”.
[1] The Patent Office is a division of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, which is a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
[2] It is important to note that this exception applies only to the Patent Office. Non-attorneys (persons not admitted to the highest court of any state) are not permitted to practice before the Trademark Office, with the exception of certain Canadian patent agents. See TMEP § 602; 37 CFR § 11.14.
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Department of Labor
- Salary
- Construction
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Construction Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Appeals
- Construction
- Public Private Partnership
- Litigation
- Contracts
- Trusts and Estates
- Data Security
- Development/Land Use
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Privacy
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Public Finance
- Business
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Health Care
- Contracting
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Property Tax
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Government
- Conveyances
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Bid Protest
- Arbitration
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens
- Liens and encumbrances
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Power Generation
- Consumer Protection
- Regulation
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Venue
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- Record on Appeal
- FINRA
- Eviction
- Rehearing
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Patents - Obviousness
- Request for Proposal
- Commercial Brokerage
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Certiorari
- Design Professionals
- Forum Selection
- email hacking
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Designer Liability
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016