Although an inventor's request for information from a co-inventor, for purposes of seeking legal advice about patentability, can be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the co-inventor's response may not be protected by the attorney-client privilege. In May 2010, Eric Weber, who is the director of engineering at Hubbell Lighting Inc., began the process to submit an internal patent application for a wireless lighting system. Weber received an IDS, or invention disclosure statement, form, and he obtained input from his co-inventors and forwarded the disclosure statement to Hubbell's legal department. During this process, Weber exchanged e-mail correspondence with Terry Arbouw, a co-inventor who is Hubbell's director of business development. Weber asked Arbouw to provide answers to four questions posed by the disclosure statement. In one e-mail that Arbouw sent on July 19, 2010, the e-mail appeared blank, and Arbouw could not recall if he had provided answers to Weber's questions underneath each question. The defendants argued that the e-mail correspondence was privileged, because invention records sent to counsel for legal advice about patentability are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The plaintiff objected that the e-mail correspondence was not privileged, because the defendants did not prove that Arbouw sent the e-mail correspondence to obtain legal advice. A party that invokes the attorney-client privilege must establish: 1.) communication between attorney and client; 2.) that was intended to be and was kept confidential; and 3.) the communication was for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. No evidence existed that Arbouw's July 19 e-mail was for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Arbouw apparently was unfamiliar with the term "IDS" and testified, "It reflects Eric [Weber] asking for a timeline. I'm not sure what IDS is, though, to be honest." The defendants failed to prove the attorney-client privilege could apply to the July 19 e-mail correspondence from Arbouw to Weber. On the other hand, "Given Weber's unilateral intent to obtain the information . . . for the purposes of seeking legal advice," wrote the court, "any further inquiry into the subject with Weber is privileged." The court granted in part the plaintiff's motion to compel.

VIEW FULL CASE