Texas State Court Declines to Follow Federal Circuit’s Recognition of a Patent Agent Privilege

Aug 24, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

In a 2-1 decision, the Dallas Court of Appeals held that it had no authority to recognize a new discovery privilege, such as a patent agent privilege. The court majority grounded its opinion in precedent that circumscribes the state courts’ authority to recognize only “privileges grounded in the Texas Constitution, statues, the Texas Rules of Evidence, or other rules established pursuant to statute.” Of these sources, the majority concluded that “[no] statute or rule recognizes or adopts a patent-agent privilege.” The majority observed that the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Queen’s University at Kingston is not binding on Texas state courts in matters where the legal issues presented are unrelated to the issues of patent validity or infringement.

Judge Evans’ dissenting opinion argued that a patent agent privilege exists in Texas state courts because communications with patent agents regarding issues of patent law fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege in rule 503 of the Texas Rules of Evidence. “Texas Rule of Evidence 503 defines a ‘lawyer’ as ‘a person authorized . . . to practice law in any state or nation.” (emphasis original). Judge Evans reasoned that: (1) the United States is a nation and (2) the Supreme Court has authorized non-attorney patent agents practice law before the United States Patent and Trademark Office from anywhere in the nation, citing to Sperry v. State of Florida ex. Rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). Thus, under Texas Rule of Evidence 503, non-attorney patent agents should be considered lawyers, and communications between clients and those agents should be protected by the attorney-client privilege.

In re Andrew Silver, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 8985 (Tex. App. Dallas Aug. 17, 2016). [Stoddart (opinion), Francis, Evans (dissenting)]

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

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.