Adobe Systems Incorporation v. Wowza Media Systems, Inc.

Filing 216

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY DISPUTE REGARDING WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE re 213 Joint Discovery Dispute Statement filed by Wowza Media Systems LLC. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on December 14, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED,

Northern District of California

Plaintiff,

12
United States District Court

11

v.

13
14
15

WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, LLC, and
COFFEE CUP PARTNERS, INC. (F/K/A/
WOWZA MEDIA SYSTEMS, INC.),

Case No.: 11-2243 CW (JSC)
ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY
DISPUTE REGARDING WAIVER OF
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
(DKT. NO. 213)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25

The Court is in receipt of a joint discovery brief from the parties regarding waiver of
attorney-client privilege. (Dkt. No. 213.) In particular, Defendants contend that Plaintiff has
waived the privilege with respect to what prior art, if any, the inventors of the patents-in-suit
provided to Plaintiff‟s patent attorneys. After carefully considering the argument and
evidence submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that oral argument is unnecessary, see
Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), and DENIES Defendants‟ motion. The denial is without prejudice to
renewal should Plaintiff put the inventors‟ disclosures to Plaintiff‟s attorneys at issue.
BACKGROUND
During the deposition of Matthew Kaufman, one of the inventors of the patents-in-suit,

26

Plaintiff asked Mr. Kaufman whether he had any responsibilities at Plaintiff Adobe (“Adobe”)

27

“with respect to the disclosure of prior art in connection with patent applications.” Mr.

28

Kaufman responded that as an inventor he was responsible for providing Plaintiff‟s attorneys

1

with relevant prior art and that the attorneys then had the responsibility to provide the art to

2

the Patent Office. He testified further that he followed this procedure with respect to the

3

patents-in-suit. In response to follow-up questions from Defendants, Mr. Kaufman could not

4

remember what prior art was provided to Plaintiff‟s attorneys, although did testify as to what

5

he believed he discussed with Plaintiff‟s attorneys, for example, the combination of the prior

6

art in a novel way.

7

During a subsequent deposition of Asa Whillock, another inventor of the patents-in-

8

suit, Plaintiff objected to Defendants‟ questions regarding the prior art Mr. Whillock disclosed

9

to Plaintiff‟s attorney on the ground of attorney-client privilege. Plaintiff has also refused to

any privilege that attached to the identification of documents, if any, the inventors provided to

12
Northern District of California

identify the prior art that any inventor provided to Adobe‟s attorneys. Defendants contend that

11
United States District Court

10

Plaintiff‟s attorneys has been waived.

13
14

DISCUSSION
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the parties appear to agree that the law of

15

the Federal Circuit governs whether there has been a waiver of attorney-client privilege and

16

the scope of any such waiver. See Brigham and Women’s Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

17

USA, Inc., 707 F. Supp. 2d 463, 469 (D. Del. 2010) (“„Federal Circuit law applies when

18

deciding whether particular written or other materials are discoverable in a patent case,‟ at

19

least if that issue clearly implicates substantive patent law”) (quoting In re Pioneer Hi-Bred

20

Int'l, Inc., 238 F.3d 1370, 1374 n. 3 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); see also In re EchoStar Communs.

21

Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“Federal circuit law applies when deciding

22

whether particular written or other materials are discoverable in a patent case, if those

23

materials relate to an issue of substantive patent law”); see also Bd. of Trustees Leland

24

Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 237 F.R.D. 618, 623 (N.D. Cal.

25

2006) (“issues that relate to discovery disputes and other procedural issues, which are unique

26

to patent cases, should be decided pursuant to Federal Circuit law”).

27
28

There also does not appear to be any dispute that the inventors‟ communications and
disclosures to Plaintiff‟s attorneys regarding prior art are privileged. See Brigham, 707 F.

2

1

Supp. 2d at 470 (“Here, it is undisputed that the attorney-client privilege applies to

2

communications between the inventors and their attorneys regarding disclosure of the „244

3

Application. Such communications between client and counsel for the purpose of obtaining

4

legal advice clearly fall within the scope of the privilege”). The issue is whether Plaintiff has

5

waived the privilege with respect to the prior art disclosures the inventors made to Plaintiff‟s

6

attorneys.1
Defendants contend that Plaintiff waived the privilege by eliciting Mr. Kaufman‟s

7

8

testimony regarding his production of prior art to Plaintiff‟s attorneys. They do not argue that

9

Mr. Kaufman‟s testimony regarding the fact of the communication was itself a privileged
and shield: Plaintiff is relying on its inventors‟ purported prior art disclosures to the attorneys

12
Northern District of California

communication; instead, they argue that Plaintiff is improperly using the privilege as a sword

11
United States District Court

10

as and therefore it is only fair that Defendants be allowed to explore whether, and to what

13

extent, the inventors in fact made such disclosures and, in turn, what disclosures the attorneys

14

made to the PTO. As to the latter information, it is not apparent why Plaintiff‟s attorneys‟

15

disclosures to the PTO would be subject to the attorney-client privilege since there is no

16

attorney-client relationship and there is nothing before the Court that suggests Plaintiff has

17

withheld any such discovery on that ground. This dispute is concerned with communications

18

between the inventors and their attorneys, including disclosures of prior art.
Defendants rely on Brigham to support their waiver argument. There, the defendants

19
20

made a claim for inequitable conduct and the plaintiff‟s discovery responses and

21

representations at oral argument confirmed that it intended to offer evidence at trial that the

22

inventors believed in good faith that they had disclosed all material information of which they

23

were aware. The plaintiff nonetheless had asserted the attorney-client privilege to prevent the

24

defendants from obtaining discovery to test the good-faith assertion. 707 F.Supp.2d at 471.

25

1

26
27
28

The parties do not address which party bears the burden regarding waiver. Some courts hold
that the party asserting waiver bears the burden, see, e.g., Brigham, 707 F.Supp.2d at 469,
while others hold the party asserting privilege bears the burden of proving non-waiver. See,
e.g., Greene, Tweed of Delaware, Inc. v. DuPont Dow Elastomers, L.L.C., 202 F.R.D. 418,
423 (E.D. Pa. 2001). The Court‟s ruling would be the same regardless of which party bears
the burden.
3

1

The district court held that as a result of the plaintiff‟s reliance on the good faith defense, they

2

had waived the privilege: “Plaintiffs are attempting to use the advice of counsel both as a

3

sword to defeat the intent prong of inequitable conduct and as a shield to prevent defendants

4

from obtaining information to prove intent to withhold information from the PTO. They

5

cannot have it both ways.” Id. This strategy has been called the “„waiver by affirmative

6

reliance‟ doctrine.” Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2008 WL 1766757 *2 (N.D. Cal.

7

Apr. 15, 2008). “Where a party raises a claim which in fairness requires disclosure of the

8

protected communication, the privilege may be waived.” Id. (quoting Chevron Corp. v.

9

Pennzoil Co., 974 F.2d 1156, 1162 (9th Cir. 1992)).

10

Plaintiff responds that Brigham does not apply because there is no claim for inequitable

Northern District of California

conduct and Plaintiff has not “indicated” that it would defend any such claim, or any other

12
United States District Court

11

claim, by relying on the inventors‟ good faith belief that they had disclosed relevant prior art

13

to the PTO. This response, of course, begs the question of why Plaintiff elicited Mr.

14

Kaufman‟s testimony regarding the process for disclosure of prior art if such testimony is

15

irrelevant to the issues in the case. Who knows? While Defendants may be suspicious that

16

Plaintiff has some argument up its sleeve that it will spring upon Defendants at the last

17

minute, thus depriving Defendants of discovery to which they are rightly entitled, the bottom

18

line is that Defendants have not identified how the inventors‟ disclosures to their attorneys are

19

currently at issue in this case.

20

Defendants‟ suggestion that their invalidity defense has somehow placed the inventors‟

21

prior art disclosures to their attorneys at issue is novel and wholly unpersuasive, as is their

22

lament that Plaintiff‟s position prevents Defendants from ever pleading inequitable conduct.

23

If that were the test, then in every patent case a defendant would be allowed to obtain

24

attorney-client privileged communications to discover whether it can make a claim for

25

inequitable conduct. It is unsurprising that Defendants do not cite any case to support such a

26

remarkable proposition.

27
28

If, at some point, the testimony becomes relevant to an issue in the case, and Plaintiff
indicates an intent to rely on the inventors‟ testimony with regard to their disclosures, then the

4

1

privilege may be waived and discovery reopened or Plaintiff precluded from such reliance.

2

On the record before the Court, however, that point has not arrived.

3

This Order disposes of Docket No. 213.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: December 14, 2012

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7

8
9
10
11
Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

5