1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Delaware Joins Trend of Eroding Attorney-Client Privilege Protection of Investigation Materials

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.

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25

Defining Claim Terms by Implication: Lexicography Lessons from Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication....