Delaware Joins Trend of Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege Protection of Investigation Materials
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.13.14
In a decision with potentially far-reaching ramifications for companies conducting internal investigations, the Delaware Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Indiana Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW (July 23, 2014) ordered Wal-Mart to hand over attorney-client privileged documents describing how it set up its investigation into Mexican bribery allegations. The Delaware Supreme Court held that, under the Garner exception, which allows stockholders to invade a corporation’s attorney-client privilege to prove a fiduciary breach by those in control of the corporation upon showing of good cause, Wal-Mart was required to comply with the stockholders’ request for information relating to the investigation, the potential of a cover-up, and the reports provided to the board of directors.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
