Dual-Purpose, Patent Analysis Documents Found Immune from Discovery under Work Product Doctrine

April 8, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

In this case, Micron sought production of several documents related to the evaluation and acquisition of certain patents—documents Micron characterized as being created for a business purpose. However, Limestone refused to produce the documents on the bases of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity, and a motion to compel followed.

Micron argued that Limestone lacked standing to withhold the documents that Limestone’s parent company created before it acquired the patents-in-suit, some of which were created before Limestone existed as a corporation. According to Micron, Limestone could not anticipate litigation before it existed. Micron also argued the documents were not entitled to privilege or work product protections because they were created for a business purpose, i.e., evaluating the patents for potential acquisition, not for litigation. More specifically, Micron argued that, under Griffith v. Davis, 161 F.R.D. 687, 698 (C.D. Cal. 1995), the documents could not qualify as attorney work product because they were “dual-purpose”—having been created for a business purpose, even if they also touched on legal issues—and would have been created even if the complaint had never been filed.

Limestone countered that for documents providing business and legal advice that is “inseparably interrelated,” the Torf standard supplanted the “primary purpose” standard, and as a result, its documents should be protected. According to Limestone, under United States v. Torf (In re Grand Jury Subpoena), 357 F.3d 900, 907 (9th Cir. 2004), “the test for [such] work-product protection is not whether litigation was a primary or secondary motive behind the creation of a document, but rather whether, under the totality of the circumstances, it can fairly be said that the document was created because of anticipated litigation.” Limestone further reasoned, “[c]learly, there is no reason to exercise an option on a patent if there is a legal decision not to assert such a patent.”

Notably, neither party distinguished the legal standards to be applied to documents withheld as work product versus documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege. In its decision, the Discovery Master clarified these standards, emphasizing that for privilege to apply, a communication must be made for the purpose of securing or providing legal advice. And when the communication involves in-house counsel with business responsibilities, the “primary purpose” of the communication must have been to obtain or provide legal advice. In contrast, work product is an immunity that protects documents if they are “prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation,” regardless of “whether litigation was a primary or secondary motive” in their creation. And this is true even if the documents are created prior to acquisition of the asserted patents because one consideration for acquisition could be possible litigation strategy.

Applying these standards, the Discovery Master found several of Limestone’s documents qualified for work product protection because “the business and legal elements of counsel’s advice [in them were] inextricably intertwined.” The “business analysis was permeated by a concurrent legal purpose, namely evaluating the legal strength and enforceability of the asserted patents.” The Discovery Master reasoned that Limestone’s parent company intended to enforce the asserted patents and created the withheld documents concurrently with the preparation of the complaint, which was filed soon after the patents were acquired.

The Discovery Master also held several of Limestone’s documents protected by the attorney-client privilege because “despite the fact that a business evaluation of the patents-in-suit and the Non-Acquired Patents may have been occurring simultaneously through parallel channels and in some instances involving outside counsel, each of the specific communications [] was generated primarily for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.” In other words, the documents would not have been generated if Limestone and its parent were merely engaged in their regular business of evaluating and purchasing patents.

On the other hand, the Discovery Master ordered Limestone to produce some of the documents on its privilege log, including email chains and attachments, because based solely on their contents, he could not determine whether they should be privileged or constitute work-product. The Discovery Master noted that Limestone had not provided sufficient evidence to conclude that they should, highlighting that it had not provided declarations by any of the persons who authored or received the documents.

Practice Tip: Parties involved in discovery of pre-suit documents should consider whether such documents were created with litigation in mind. If so, those documents may be protected by work-product immunity or as privileged, but those labels should be applied thoughtfully based on the applicable legal standards. Parties desiring to protect documents that have concurrent business and legal purposes may have the best chance of excluding them from discovery if they explicitly state their legal purpose in the documents themselves. And, if it is not clear from the four corners of the documents, supplemental evidence, such as declarations from those persons involved in their creation or communication, may support a claim that protection should apply.

Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al, 8-15-cv-00278 (CACD 2019-02-19, Order) (Roy Silva)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.