Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 FEBRUARY 2017

Privilege Claims Validated In Counterfeit Detection Dispute

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

In a recent decision, Magistrate Judge Kelley addressed the legitimacy of withholding third party communications under the common interest doctrine.

United StatesIntellectual Property

In a recent decision, Magistrate Judge Kelley addressed the legitimacy of withholding third party communications under the common interest doctrine. The case involved plaintiff Crane Security Technologies, Inc. ("Crane") – the exclusive supplier of banknote paper for United States currency – and defendant Rolling Optics, AB ("RO") – that, among other things, manufactures 3D micro-optic foils for use on product packaging to "assure the genuineness of a branded product." Crane alleged that RO's 3D micro-optic foils infringed patents directed to an "optical system" that prevents counterfeiting.

The patents-in-suit were initially owned by a third party, Nanoventions ("NV"). Over a period of several years, Crane obtained an exclusive license to the patents from NV, and subsequently purchased the patents outright. During discovery, RO sought certain communications between Crane and third parties regarding both transactions, including: (1) communications between Crane and

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from