Plaintiff's motion to quash the depositions of its prosecuting attorneys was denied. "Multiple jurisdictions recognize that mental impressions of prosecuting patent attorneys are not only relevant, but possibly crucial, to an inequitable conduct defense. In this case, the subpoenas only request that the prosecuting attorneys produce certain documents and appear at depositions, without indicating the specific questions [defendant] intends to ask. As such, it is unreasonable to conclude that everything these individuals could say that is relevant to the litigation would be privileged information."
Davis-Lynch Inc v. Weatherford Int'l Inc., 6-07-cv-00559 (TXED April 24, 2009, Order)