FLH Successfully Overcomes Opponent's Assertion Of Privilege And Compels Production Of Testing Documents

HP
Haug Partners

Contributor

Haug Partners is a full-service law firm that provides integrated multidisciplinary legal services for technology companies. Through relationships with firms in Germany, China, Japan, and other key international markets, Haug Partners has the resources, technical expertise, legal acumen, and business judgment to consistently deliver optimal outcomes for clients.
Magistrate Judge Schneider of the District of New Jersey granted plaintiff Supernus's motion to compel thirty-three documents that defendant TWi claimed were inadvertently produced privileged documents.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

Magistrate Judge Schneider of the District of New Jersey granted plaintiff Supernus's motion to compel thirty-three documents that defendant TWi claimed were inadvertently produced privileged documents. The documents at issue concern defendant's testing of the solubility of the active ingredient oxcarbazepine in the presence of certain excipients. The Court noted that "[a]ccording to plaintiff, the test results are important because they show that ingredient(s) in defendant's accused tablets enhance the solubility of oxcarbazepine, thereby proving infringement of that claim limitation." Defendant argued that the tests were conducted "in an attempt to replicate the testing done in the patents-in-suit," "have no application" to defendant's "technical ANDA submission to the FDA," and "relate to tests that were conducted by TWi at the direction of counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and in anticipation of litigation." The Court rejected those arguments in a nine-page opinion, ruling that "[w]hat is compelling to the Court is that defendant's tests were not primarily prepared for the purpose of rendering legal advice or preparing for anticipated litigation," but "to conduct research and development in order to assist TWi to prepare and file its ANDA, and to decide what ingredients to use." The opinion should serve to dispel a common misperception held by many patent litigators that merely "involving" yourself in testing conducted by your client, no matter what the purpose, will shield that testing from discovery. As Judge Schneider explains, "[u]nfortunately for defendant, counsel incorrectly assumed that merely because he was 'involved' with defendant's testing that defendant's test results would be privileged." If testing does need to be conducted solely for litigation purposes, outside counsel is better off engaging a third-party laboratory to avoid any argument that the tests have a different primary purpose (e.g., research and development).

To view the opinion, please click here.

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.

FLH Successfully Overcomes Opponent's Assertion Of Privilege And Compels Production Of Testing Documents

United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Haug Partners is a full-service law firm that provides integrated multidisciplinary legal services for technology companies. Through relationships with firms in Germany, China, Japan, and other key international markets, Haug Partners has the resources, technical expertise, legal acumen, and business judgment to consistently deliver optimal outcomes for clients.
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More