Business Litigation Report -- March 2013

In This Issue:

- Firm News:

Quinn Emanuel Recognized as a “2013 Go-To Law Firm for Top 500 Companies” and Quinn Emanuel Named Law360 Class Action Practice Group of the Year

- Main Article:

Common-Interest Doctrine—A Tool to Prevent Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Transactions

- Practice Area Notes:

White Collar Litigation Update; Appellate Update—The Appellate Timetable; Russia Litigation Update; and Class Action Litigation Update

- Victories:

Ninth Circuit Victory for Mattel in Long-Running MGA Dispute; Fashion Industry Settlement Victory; and Ninth Circuit Victory for Shell in Arctic Drilling Case

- Noted With Interest:

Standard Essential Patents Come Under Scrutiny of the DOJ, FTC, and PTO

- Excerpt from Common-Interest Doctrine—A Tool to Prevent Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege in Intellectual Property Transactions:

It is easy to waive attorney-client privilege inadvertently while negotiating intellectual property (“IP”) transactions. For example, when an IP owner seeks to sell a patented product, potential buyers often ask for any opinions of counsel that concern the patent. The IP owner must decide whether or not to disclose the privileged opinions to the potential buyer. Such opinions might be essential to the deal itself. Many potential buyers request IP opinions in order to assess both the value and the strength of the seller’s IP portfolio. Without these opinions, a potential buyer might simply walk away from a deal—not knowing sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding the propriety of the transaction. However, while potentially essential to the transaction, such a disclosure of an opinion of counsel can waive the attorney-client privilege. This creates a tension between a need to disclose the opinions to further the business transaction and a need to maintain attorney-client privilege over the opinions of counsel.