Sovaldi® Patent Battle Update: Was A Gilead Atty-Client Privileged Document Disclosed In Error?

Late yesterday, the lawyers for the Merck related parties filed a letter with the Delaware District Court, asking for a ruling from the court on whether a specific document is privileged, and thus exempt from discovery. [Back in May 2015, Merck prevailed on an issue involving one of the Sovaldi^® patents' claim construction; thus the graphic at right.]

That the current document in dispute has been Bates stamped -- and marked in, as a "Gilead" document -- means that it has been turned over to the Merck-related parties. That in turn was apparently (at least allegedly) an error. Usually errant disclosure creates a rebuttable presummption of waiver of privilege, if memory serves. In any event, here's the bit:

. . . .Defendants have requested the return, sequester, or destruction of the document bearing production number GILEAD04008224 on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs have challenged Defendants’ claim of privilege. The parties request a judicial determination regarding Defendants’ privilege claim. . . .

We will keep you informed, as to how this turns out. Onward.