On January 26, 2017, a New York state appeals court panel affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of a $10 million malpractice complaint filed against Alston & Bird LLP. The court held that the complaint filed by Alston’s former client, high-tech fabric maker Brookwood Cos., Inc., failed to state a plausible claim that Brookwood would have
Alston & Bird Prevails In $10 Million Patent Litigation Malpractice Suit Read More »
On January 25, 2017, the Federal Circuit ruled a district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based upon the losing party’s conduct with respect to responding to one particular issue in discovery. In National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine,
It says a lot when the busiest patent judge in the United States calls a patent lawsuit “the clearest example of an exceptional case” he has ever seen. That is precisely what happened earlier this week, when Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, who personally handles one-quarter of all patent cases filed
Plaintiff Gets Judicial Scolding: “If This Case Is Not Exceptional, Then There Are None” Read More »
The rules of ethics–particularly rules that prohibit conflicts of interest and require the utmost loyalty–apply to the President of the United States. That is the premise underlying a lawsuit filed today by a group of ethics experts against President Trump. See Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Donald J. Trump, Case No. 1:17-cv-00458-RA
Ethics Experts Sue Trump For “Countless Conflicts of Interest” From Foreign Payments Read More »
A recent patent malpractice action filed in federal court in New York against an IP firm raises once again the issue of subject matter conflicts between concurrent clients in prosecuting patent applications in a similar field of technology. The issue of subject matter conflicts in concurrent patent representation continues to be an area of significant
The Federal Circuit on Friday affirmed a district court’s order imposing sanctions against a Colorado patent attorney and his patentee client for vexatious litigation. Doubling down, the Federal Circuit imposed its own sanctions for what it says was a frivolous appeal. See Walker v. Health International Corp., No. 15-1676 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 6, 2017). The CAFC’s ruling opens the
CAFC Sanctions Patent Atty For Frivolous Appeal; Is USPTO Discipline Next? Read More »
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, since it is the New Year I thought it would be helpful to remind you all, again, of what is in my opinion the First Commandment of Ethics: Thou Shalt Communicate With Thy Clients. Seriously. Clients do not like to be ignored by their attorneys. This
Failure To Communicate No. 1 Cause Of USPTO Attorney Discipline Read More »
To all of you who have been dying to know what happened in the world of ethics and discipline at the USPTO in the past year, I am pleased to say your wait is finally over. I have written, “2016 USPTO Disciplinary Decisions — The Year in Review.” Why was The 2016 Year in Review
2016 USPTO Disciplinary Decisions – The Year In Review Read More »
