## Facts

- Luv N’ Care, Ltd. (Luv N’ Care) marketed a combined placemat-and-bowl product for toddlers.
- Lindsey Laurain and her company, Eazy-PZ, LLC (Eazy-PZ), marketed a similar combined placemat-and-bowl product.
- Luv N’ Care sued Laurain/Eazy-PZ for patent infringement in separate litigation.
- Williams Intellectual Property (Williams), a Colorado patent-agent firm, assisted Laurain/Eazy-PZ in prosecuting patents before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including through registered patent agent Ben Williams.
- In a miscellaneous action in the District of Colorado, Luv N’ Care sought documents from Williams relating to Williams’s work for Laurain/Eazy-PZ.
- Williams refused to produce certain requested materials, claiming they were protected by a patent-agent privilege, and it provided a privilege log.
- Some privilege-log entries described the withheld communications in conclusory terms, including characterizations such as “advice of patent agent and/or advice of patent agent + advice of counsel.”
- Luv N’ Care moved to compel production, challenging whether the asserted privilege applied and whether Williams’s log and descriptions were sufficient to support withholding.

## Issues

1. Whether federal law recognizes a patent-agent privilege protecting confidential client communications with a registered patent agent.
2. If such a privilege exists, whether it is limited to communications for USPTO patent-prosecution work (as opposed to broader business or non-prosecution matters).
3. Whether Williams, as the privilege claimant, carried its burden to justify withholding through a sufficiently detailed privilege log and supporting descriptions, including for entries describing mixed “patent agent + counsel” communications.

## Decision

- The court applied a limited patent-agent privilege that can protect confidential communications between a client and a registered patent agent, but only within the scope of patent-agent work authorized before the USPTO (generally, patent prosecution).
- The court did not accept broad, label-only privilege assertions in the log (including entries described only as “advice of patent agent and/or advice of patent agent + advice of counsel”) as enough, by themselves, to support withholding.
- The motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part: materials were protected only to the extent Williams showed they were confidential communications for patent-prosecution functions within a patent agent’s authorized role.
- Where Williams’s descriptions were too vague to allow meaningful testing of the privilege claim, or where the descriptions did not show that the communication was for USPTO prosecution work, the court ordered production (or required additional support sufficient to evaluate the claim).

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may recognize a patent-agent privilege protecting confidential communications between a client and a registered patent agent, but the privilege is narrow.
- The privilege covers only communications for legal advice and services that patent agents are authorized to provide in representing clients before the USPTO, most commonly the preparation and prosecution of patent applications.
- Communications about business strategy or other non-prosecution matters are not protected merely because a patent agent participated.
- The party asserting privilege bears the burden to show that each withheld document satisfies the elements of the privilege.
- A privilege log must provide enough nonprivileged detail (such as participants, general subject matter, and purpose) to permit the requesting party and the court to evaluate the claim; conclusory phrases like “advice of patent agent” or “advice of patent agent + advice of counsel,” without more, are insufficient.

## Conclusion

In this Colorado miscellaneous discovery dispute, the court treated patent-agent privilege as real but limited: it protected only confidential communications tied to USPTO patent-prosecution work, and it required Williams to justify withholding with document-specific information rather than conclusory privilege-log labels.


Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Williams Intellectual Property, Civil Action No. 18-MC-00212-WJM-KLM (2019)