{"id":649,"date":"2016-03-07T11:41:22","date_gmt":"2016-03-07T16:41:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=649"},"modified":"2016-03-25T11:50:12","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T15:50:12","slug":"the-privileged-few","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=649","title":{"rendered":"The Privileged Few"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Queens’s University at Kingston<\/em>, [2015-145] (March 7, 2016) the Federal Circuit\u00a0granted\u00a0a writ of mandamus directing the district court to withdraw its order compelling the production of Queen\u2019s University\u2019s communications with its non-attorney patent agents. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said:<\/p>\n

To the extent Congress has authorized non-attorney patent agents to engage in the practice of law before the Patent Office, reason and experience compel us to recognize a patent-agent privilege that is coextensive with the rights granted to patent agents by Congress. A client has a reasonable expectation that all communications relating to \u201cobtaining legal advice on patentability and legal services in preparing a patent application\u201d will be kept\u00a0privileged.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Whether communications are directed to an attorney or his or her legally equivalent patent agent should be of no moment — to hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of Congress\u2019s design: namely, to afford clients the freedom to choose between an attorney and a patent agent for representation before the Patent Office.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Queens’s University at Kingston, [2015-145] (March 7, 2016) the Federal Circuit\u00a0granted\u00a0a writ of mandamus directing the district court to withdraw its order compelling the production of Queen\u2019s University\u2019s communications with its non-attorney patent agents. \u00a0The Federal Circuit said: To … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-649","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-patent-prosecution"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/649","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=649"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/649\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":650,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/649\/revisions\/650"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=649"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=649"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=649"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}