The New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) filed an amicus brief last Thursday in the U.S. Supreme Court in In re Grand Jury. The petition was filed in April this year, presenting the Supreme Court with the question of whether communication involving both legal and non-legal advice should be protected by attorney-client privilege. The question has broad implications for attorney-client privileges, especially for intellectual property lawyers, says the NYIPLA brief. NYIPLA makes the case that the Supreme Court should adopt “a rule which protects a dual-purpose communication if a significant purpose of the communication is to obtain or provide legal advice.” Currently, the appeals courts are divided as to whether this rule should be adopted versus one that protects communications only if legal advice was the dominant purpose behind the communication.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks and Bites for Friday, May 10: Bipartisan Congress Members Call for GAO Study on March-In Proposal; USPTO Warns Trademark Applicants of Data Leak; Supreme Court Rejects Time Limit on Copyright Damages
- The World’s AI Companies Are Killing Trust in the Technology
- SCOTUS Rejects Three-Year Limit on Copyright Damages But Sidesteps Accrual Question
- G+ Communications v. Samsung: The Perils of Being ‘Half-Committed’ to FRAND
- Four Factors to Consider When Deciding Whether to Use Trade Secrets