Expansion of privilege in India called for
Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Expansion of privilege in India called for

The issue of protecting confidential client-IP advisor communications from forced disclosure on a global scale is complicated

In a panel discussion yesterday, Steven Garland of Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh said in reality there is a lack of coverage domestically in certain countries and a lack of coverage in cross-border scenarios. He said the solution may come from WIPO’s Standing Committee on the Law of Patents and a Group B+ proposed multilateral agreement.

Talking about India, Anand and Anand’s Pravin Anand said it is unfortunate that patent agents are not covered by privilege. “The need for privilege for intellectual property advisors stems from the fact there is increasing trade in IP rights and lawyers increasingly need technical advisers. Therefore the public interest dictates that what is available for lawyers should be available to patent agents,” he said.

Privilege issues throw up problems for multijurisdictional litigation. Anand noted that in Eli Lilly v Pfizer in Australia and Canada there was no privilege for communication with patent advisors. “This has led to forum shopping,” he said.

Reasons for the Indian government’s opposition to expansion of privilege include: it will keep out prior art leading to defective patents; privilege norms need to be set on socio-economic conditions; information can be protected through non-disclosure agreements; respecting the privileges of other countries violates India’s sovereignty; and TRIPS and the Paris Convention do not mandate such an expansion. Anand disagreed with these, noting among other things that making disclosure of prior art required by law would stop privilege being a problem and expanding privilege law would help India.

“There has been some effort since 2003 to try to change the law, to expand the definition of legal practitioner,” Anand said. He added there may be more hope with the new Indian government.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Tony Nguyen, who returned to Fish & Richardson this month after a year travelling overseas, tells Managing IP how and why he took the plunge
Tom Treutler, who previously managed the Vietnamese office of Tilleke & Gibbins, has joined East IP
Counsel discuss upcoming AI and data privacy legislation and what they’ve learned since Chile joined the Madrid Protocol
INTA has postponed its planned Annual Meeting in Dubai, but the organisation should think carefully about whether it wants to go there at all
The firm has named its new managing director after its former Asia head resigned earlier this year
As law firms explore how best to support clients at the UPC, members of the UPCLA network believe they have found the best of both worlds
The Industry Patent Quality Charter hosted a conference in which it discussed the importance of granting high-quality patents
Julia Holden explains why, if she weren’t in IP, she would be directing and producing live English-language theatre
Gift this article