Client Funds

Law Firms Tell Mass. Supreme Court No Subject Matter Conflict In Patent Prosecution Unless Claims “Identical” Or “Mere Obvious Variants”

1 Comment / Conflicts of Interest, Malpractice, Patent Ethics, Patent Malpractice / By

On August 20, 2015, eleven law firms filed a joint amicus brief in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner.  In Maling, the Massachusetts high court requested amicus briefing on whether Finnegan Henderson’s concurrent representation of two different clients who were allegedly seeking patent protection at the […]

Law Firms Tell Mass. Supreme Court No Subject Matter Conflict In Patent Prosecution Unless Claims “Identical” Or “Mere Obvious Variants” Read More »

USPTO Reciprocally Excludes Patent Lawyer Based On State Court Disbarment

Leave a Comment / Client Funds, IP Ethics, Patent Ethics, PTO Ethics Decisions, Reciprocal Discipline / By

 On July 15, 2015, the USPTO Director entered an order excluding Richard Polidi from practice before the Office.  The USPTO Director’s disciplinary action came after the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) filed a complaint for reciprocal discipline predicated on Mr. Polidi’s disbarment from State Bar of North Carolina. Based on public documents filed

USPTO Reciprocally Excludes Patent Lawyer Based On State Court Disbarment Read More »

IP Litigators Beware: Bad News May Be Hazardous To Your Law License (Part 2 of 2)

Leave a Comment / IP Litigation Sanctions, Patent Ethics, Patent Litigation Ethics, Trademark Ethics, USPTO OED / By

Bad news on the doorstep.  I couldn’t take one more step.  Don McLean – American Pie In the last year, many “bad news” articles have been published arising from IP litigation. Not surprisingly, a growing number of those articles have been based on exceptional case findings and awards of attorneys’ fees under the Octane Fitness

IP Litigators Beware: Bad News May Be Hazardous To Your Law License (Part 2 of 2) Read More »

After Confessing To Ethics Violation, Patent Attorney Disbarred For Commingling And Converting Client Funds

Leave a Comment / Client Funds, Communications, PTO Ethics Decisions / By

“If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything.” – Mark Twain Give patent attorney Stephen Robinson at least a little credit – he was honest about being dishonest. The fact he self-reported his ethical violations to the Kansas Bar was not enough to save his state law license.  In re Stephen R. Robinson, No. 107,311 (Kan. Sup. Ct.). Nor

After Confessing To Ethics Violation, Patent Attorney Disbarred For Commingling And Converting Client Funds Read More »

Former Siemens Patent Attorney Indicted In $2.4 Million Fraudulent Billing Scheme

Leave a Comment / Client Funds, Patent Criminal / By

“The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.” — Gorden Gekko, Wall Street. Maybe “greed works” for some.  For Alexander James Burke, however, greed may end up being his downfall. On October 16, 2014, Burke,

Former Siemens Patent Attorney Indicted In $2.4 Million Fraudulent Billing Scheme Read More »

USPTO Suspends Ethically-Challenged Patent Attorney

Leave a Comment / Client Funds, Communications, Competence, USPTO Director Decisions / By

On August 19, 2014, the USPTO Director issued a final order suspending a patent attorney for 20-months based on three separate suspensions issued by the Supreme Court of California. The USPTO added an additional six-month period to the suspension—for a total suspension of 26 months—based on the attorney’s failure to cooperate with the OED’s disciplinary

USPTO Suspends Ethically-Challenged Patent Attorney Read More »

USPTO Disciplines Attorney For Billing $1,000 Hourly “Relationship Fee”

2 Comments / Client Funds, Discipline, PTO Ethics Decisions / By

The USPTO settled a disciplinary action filed against a non-patent attorney who billed a client thousands of dollars, at a rate of $1,000 per hour, to prepare a patent application and then, without his client’s knowledge or consent, outsourced the legal work to an unaffiliated patent attorney for a fraction of the fee paid by the client.   In re Lehat, No.

USPTO Disciplines Attorney For Billing $1,000 Hourly “Relationship Fee” Read More »

Alj Fernández Issues Initial Decision Excluding Patent Attorney Who Kept Fees After Failing To Provide Services

Leave a Comment / Client Funds, Communications, Discipline, PTO Ethics Decisions / By

Administrative Law Judge Alexander Fernández issued an initial decision excluding a patent attorney from practice before the USPTO because the attorney accepted fees from a client to prepare a patent application, failed to provide any legal services, and failed to return any of the client’s fee even after the client was awarded a money judgment against the

Alj Fernández Issues Initial Decision Excluding Patent Attorney Who Kept Fees After Failing To Provide Services Read More »

Scroll to Top