In Re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• ruling that invention record submitted to in-house counsel for purpose of obtaining patentability determination was privileged communication “made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice”
• holding that first the party challenging the attorney-client privilege must “make a prima facie showing that the communication was made ‘in furtherance of [prohibited conduct, and only then may the trial court consider the exception]
• stating that the issue is “whether Spalding’s invention record is protected by the attorney-client privilege”
• finding that Federal Circuit law applied because determination of the attorney-client privilege to invention record clearly implicated substantive patent issues
• describing the crime-fraud exception as applying only in the context of crime or fraud, without reference to “fundamental misconduct”
• recognizing inequitable conduct as an issue of substantive patent law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).