Legal Opinion
Laser Industries, Ltd. v. Reliant Technologies, Inc.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided June 7, 1996No. C-96-0390 CW (WDB)PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO PIERCE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE BASED ON CRIME/FRAUD EXCEPTION
BRAZIL, United States Magistrate Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Laser Industries and Sharplan Lasers (“Laser”) sued defendant Reliant *419Technologies (“Reliant”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,411,502 (“the ’502 patent”). Reliant sought certain discovery relating to the prosecution of the ’502 patent and the initiation of Laser’s lawsuit. Laser resisted some of this discovery, asserting that specific documents sought are protected by the attorney-client…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.Supreme Court of the United States · 1996
- Herbert Markman and Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. And Althon Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1995
- Bourjaily v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- In Re Napster, Inc. Copyright LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
- ImpoundedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
- American Tobacco Co. v. StateDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997
- Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- In Re: General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.