For the health of the economy and patent system: rationale and scope of patent attorney privilege

Legal context: There exists, in some countries, a patent attorney privilege.This privilege allows an actual or potential holder of patentrights to withhold from a court communications that it has hadwith its patent attorney. The privilege is not recognized inall jurisdictions and there is variation in the extent of theprivilege in those countries where it does exist. Key points: This article explores the rationale for the privilege in orderto see if there is a sound basis upon which to found it. Througha consideration of the justifications for other legal privileges,the article finds that patent attorney privilege is a justifiableprotection for communications between clients and their patentattorneys. If there was a possibility that the communicationswould have to be revealed in court, this may impact the fulland frank nature of the communications. Such communicationsassist patent attorneys, as professionals with expertise ina specialized field, to provide clients with appropriate andeffective advice. That advice goes directly to the maintenanceand benefit of the patent system and the overall economy. Practical significance: As a result of the variation in the extent of the privilegearound the world, there are moves afoot to reform its operation.This article reveals strong public policy reasons for the recognitionof a patent attorney privilege. These grounds also reinforcethe need to ensure that privilege is not unduly limited in itsoperation in any jurisdiction.     

The defence of therapeutic privilege in Australia

Therapeutic privilege is a defence that excuses a medical practitioner or other health professional from complying with the requirements of full disclosure to a patient in circumstances where it is reasonably considered that such disclosure would be harmful to that patient's health or welfare. Although the concept originated in the United States, the defence has been applied in Australia, and was specifically endorsed as part of Australian law by the High Court in Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. However, there has been negligible application of the defence since that endorsement. This article examines the doctrine of therapeutic privilege in the present Australian medico-legal environment. After an examination of the concept and its three constituetent elements, the article canvasses the limited instances of judicial approval of the defence prior to Rogers v Whitaker. The author then analyses, by reference to reported and unreported case law, why the defence has been so narrowly interpreted since, such that it has come to occupy an almost untenable position in Australia's medical jurisprudence.     

The scope of sexual victimization in Germany

This study examined the sexual victimization of 309 female students in Germany. The results indicate that the majority of the subjects have been victims of minor offenses and that a minority of subjects was severely victimized. As to the relation of victim and perpetrator, the milder offenses are more likely to be committed by strangers. In contrast, the most serious offenses are more likely to be committed by perpetrators with a close relation to the victim. It was also investigated whether the perception of being victimized correlates with the subjects' gender-role orientation and their health problems.     

Waiver of privilege in experiment work-ups

In an interim application, Pumfrey J has held that serving anotice of experiments in the course of patent litigation islikely to amount to a waiver of any privilege that subsistsin respect of any preliminary or work-up investigations conductedin the course of devising those experiments.