View
218
Download
2
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
12014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
#IHCC14
SECRETS, LIES, AND MONEY! Ethical rules for interacting with non-lawyers in IP
litigation and transactionsJanuary 22, 2014
Los Angeles, California
Sponsored by Sidley Austin LLP
Panelists: Kelly Kriebs, Sidley Austin LLP Samuel Tiu, Sidley Austin LLP
Moderator: Harrison Perla, Esq., CEVA, Inc.
#IHCC12
090701_2 2
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Is it ethical for lawyers/parties to pay fact witnesses (e.g., inventors) to cooperate in litigation?
Even in negotiations with another party, how should a lawyer interact with a represented party, or maintain the client’s confidence, but remain truthful?
How should in-house counsel deal with employees who had access to sensitive trade secrets of their former employers?
Questions for Consideration
090701_3 3
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Content of testimony vs. reasonable value for loss time– ABA Model Rules 3.4(b) and Comment (3)
ABA Formal Opinion 96-402
– Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 5-310(B) California Formal Opinion 1997-149
– 18 USC 201 – Federal anti-bribery and anti-gratuity statute
– Case law
Compensating aFact Witness Inventor
090701_4 4
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Benefits should be directly tied to reasonable reimbursement for time and expenses
What about payment contingent on successful outcome of case?
Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ($300K upon execution of agreement and $1 million dollars on successful outcome payable to inventor)
ESN LLC v. Cisco, 685 F. Supp 2d 631 (ED Tex. 2009) ($200K based on favorable outcome payable to former employer of inventor)
TQP v. Newegg ($350/hour plus 2.5% of settlement awards)
Reasonableness of Payment
090701_5 5
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Can I prevent a non-employee inventor witness from communicating with the other side’s attorneys?
– ABA Model Rules 3.4(f)
– Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 5-310(A)
“Locking Up” The Inventor Witness
090701_6 6
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Shield communications with the attorney-client privilege
Issues to consider:– Joint representation/conflict of interests
ABA Model 1.7 (and Cal Rule 3-310)
– Solicitation rules ABA Model 7.3
Representing the Former Employee/Inventor
090701_7 7
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Case law example:– Sensormatic Elecs. Corp. v. WG Security Prods., Inc.,
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30591 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2006)
Privilege protection of communications:– FRCP 26(b)(4)(C) (non-testifying expert)
– FRCP 26(b)(4)(D) (testifying expert)
Inventor – Dual Capacity Witness
090701_8 8
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
If the inventor is a former employee of your adversary …– Communication
Represented by counsel? ABA Model Rule 4.2 California Rule 2-100
Not represented by counsel? Proposed California Rule 4.3(b)
– Payment
– Hire as expert witness?
Inventors of the Adverse Party
090701_9 9
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Not affiliated with either party
Payment considerations as part of litigation strategy– Witness bias?
TypeRight Keyboard Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 374 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
– Control and non-attendance at trial
Prior Art Witnesses
090701_10 10
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Check the specific jurisdiction for your case
Candor with court and opposing counsel is important
Disclose early
Take-Aways
090701_11 11
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 2-100– Not limited to litigation; also applies to transactions
Graham v. U.S. (9th Cir. 1996) 96 F.3d 446; Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 2-100 Discussion (2008)
– Knowledge of Representation Snider v. Superior Court (Quantum Productions Inc.) (2003) 113
Cal.App.4th 1187; Cal. Bar Form. Op. 1996-145
Communication with Represented Parties
090701_12 12
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Consent to communication with represented party must come from the party’s counsel (Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 2-100)
– Consent from Target’s GC or outside counsel?
– ABA Form. Op. 06-443
Communication with Represented Parties
090701_13 13
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Communication via Social Media– SDCBA Legal Ethics Opinion 2011-2
Take-Aways– Do you know (or should you have known) the opposing
party is represented by counsel?
– Get consent from counsel to communicate with her client
– Consider all forms of communication
Social Media and Take Aways
090701_14 14
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
“Open Source” Review
“Open Source” License– Permissive
– Viral
– Attribution requirements
Copyright infringement– Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (2008)
“Open Source” Software
090701_15 15
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Duty of Candor– How does duty relate to duty to follow client’s
instructions and keep confidences ABA Model Rule 1.2(a) Cal Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(e)
– No duty to protect the interests of non-clients Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954 and Skarbrevik v.
Cohen, England & Whitfield (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 692 Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 198 Cal.3d 355 and ABA Formal
Opn. No. 94-387
– Who is the client? Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-600
Duty of Candor
090701_16 16
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Duty of Candor– Cal Bus. & Prof. Code 6106
– ABA Model Rules 4.1 and 8.4
– Vega v. Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 282
Must not participate in fraudulent conduct– Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 3-210 and related
Discussion
May have to “report up” and perhaps, ultimately, withdraw (resign)
Duty of Candor
090701_17 17
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Duty of candor to the court – standards differ– ABA Model Rule 3.3
– Cal Rules of Prof. Conduct 5-200 and Cal Bus. & Prof. Code 6068(d)
Take-Aways– Duty of confidentiality to client is paramount
– But cannot knowingly make a false statement of fact or perpetrate a fraud
– Duty to “report up”
Duty of Candor; Take-Aways
090701_18 18
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Ethical dilemma– Cannot possess trade secrets of others
– But destroying documents with trade secrets may be viewed as spoliation of evidence
Possible approaches?– Return the information
– Quarantine the information
– Destroy the information
Employee with Former Employer’s Trade Secrets
090701_19 19
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Onboarding new employees is important
Examples:– IBM v. Visentin, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15342 (S.D.N.Y.
2011)
– Amazon.com v. Powers, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182831 (W.D. Was. 2012)
Employee with Former Employer’s Trade Secrets
090701_20 20
#IHCC142014 ACC-SoCal In-House Counsel Conference
Kelly Kriebs– Partner, Corporate and Finance
Sidley Austin LLP
Samuel Tiu– Partner, Litigation - Intellectual Property
Sidley Austin LLP
Harrison Perla, Esq.– Director of Worldwide Legal Affairs
CEVA, Inc.@HarrisonEsquire on Twitter
Panelists
000000_21
11th Annual In-House Counsel ConferenceJanuary 22, 2014 (Los Angeles, CA)
#IHCC1421
www.acc.com/chapters/socal/
Recommended