discovery order seeking the patent prosecutor’s invoices in connection with the opposing party’s patent prosecution laches and inequitable conduct claims. The Court held that the non-privileged aspects of the patent attorney’s invoices could be relevant as to “when each particular prosecution matter was opened, how long it took between the initial opening and when the application was first filed, what activities occurred during prosecution of each application, when each activity occurred, and how much time was spent on the activity.” Equally disturbing, the Court found that the amount of annual compensation received by the patent attorney for prosecuting the patents-at-issue was discoverable in connection with the “specific intent to deceive” aspect of the asserted inequitable conduct claim. The Court also noted that the amount of annual compensation could be relevant to the patent attorney’s credibility.
Recording time is a daily task that has fallen under the radar for most firms. This case may be an anomaly, but patent prosecutors should take notice. Most lawyers merely assume that their bills will never make their way into court. However, in this case, various time entries could create some issues.