The applicant also argued that a legal community could exist between a patent holder and a promoter of proceedings relating to the work product privilege. See id. (citing Carlyle Inv. Mgmt. L.L.C. v. Moonmouth Co. S.A., 2015 WL 778846, at *7 (Del. Ch. Feb. 24, 2015)).

However, since the Carlyle case dealt exclusively with the issue of work product, the court found that the Carlyle case was not commensurate with solicitors` privilege. Acceleration well at *8. Ultimately, the party attempting to assert the privilege must demonstrate that the third party was related to the party for a common legal ground at the time of disclosure. In other words, the common legal reason cannot occur after the communication has been made, and the common legal ground cannot have expired when the communication has been made. Therefore, to take advantage of the privilege of the common interest, the parties are advised to enter into an agreement defining the nature of the relationship, the common ground and the dispute arising from it. While this is not always practical, it may be useful for a party to initiate litigation before exchanging communications with third parties. B. Solicitor-Client Privilege Solicitor-Client Privilege protects information from discovery when the “5 C`s” are completed: (1) The information has been transmitted confidentially; (2) the information has been communicated in the form of a communication; (3) the information has been transmitted by or to a lawyer; (4) the information has been provided by or to a customer; and (5) the information has been transmitted for the purpose of providing or receiving legal aid (legal aid). Reformulation (third) of lawyers` law § 68 (ab. Inst.