Expansion of privilege in India called for
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

In a seminal ruling, the Beijing Internet Court said images generated by Stable Diffusion counted as original works
Boston-based John Lanza is hoping to work more with life sciences colleagues on the ‘exciting’ application of AI to drug discovery
The Delhi High Court has expressed its willingness to set global licensing terms in the Nokia-Oppo dispute, but it must deal with longstanding problems first
Some patent counsel are still encountering errors even though the USPTO has fully transitioned to the new system
A senior USPTO attorney spoke at a Nokia-sponsored event on the EU’s proposed SEP Regulation today, November 29
IP counsel are ‘flooded’ with queries from clients worried about deepfakes, but the law has so far come up short
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP practitioner about their life and career
Mathys & Squire has filed a test case that the firm hopes will make UPC pleadings available by default
Multiple representatives and their teams can now work on cases using the online CMS, but not everyone can submit documents
James Lawrence, partner at Addisons, explains how he convinced the full Federal Court of Australia to back his client in a patent dispute concerning mining safety equipment