In The News
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in The Recorder in its front-page article published on September 15, 2017, entitled, Did McKool Smith Violate Prosecution Bar in High-Profile Patent Case? (by Scott Graham) (sub req’d). The article addresses a district court’s finding that attorneys for Eolas Technologies, Inc. violated a patent “prosecution bar” prohibiting litigation counsel who received highly confidential information from working on certain patent prosecution matters for one year following the “entry of a final non-appealable judgment.” Amazon is seeking to have Eolas’ patents found unenforceable based on the asserted protective order violation. The case is Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No. 17-cv-03022-JST (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017).
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in IP Law360 and Legal Ethics 360 in their lead article published on July 31, 2017, entitled “Ex-L’Oreal Atty Faces Tough Road in Wrongful Firing Case” (by Andrew Strickler) (sub req’d). The Law360 article addresses the ramifications of the Third Circuit’s decision in Steven Trzsaka v. L’Oreal USA Inc., Case No. 15-3810 (3rd Cir. July 25, 2017), a 2-1 decision finding that a patent attorney’s complaint for retaliatory discharge was sufficiently pled to survive Rule 12(b)(6). The complaint alleged that L’Oreal fired a patent attorney because the attorney allegedly refused to meet a company-wide “quota” of filing 40 new patent applications per year. The attorney objected to the quota, asserting that he believed the patent applications were for weak inventions and that to file such patent applications violated the USPTO’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted by The American Lawyer Daily Business Review on May 24, 2017, in an article entitled “Greenberg Traurig Agrees to Withdraw from Case in Which it was Faced with Conflict of Interest” (by Monika Gonzalez Mesa) (sub req’d). The article quotes IPethics & INsights, which first broke the story in our May 22 post here. As we previously reported, Greenberg had filed a counterclaim attacking the validity of two patents, but Greenberg attorneys had filed the provisional application to which both allegedly invalid patents claimed priority. The former client sought Greenberg’s disqualification from the lawsuit. Before the DQ motion could be decided, the law firm voluntarily agreed to withdraw from the case, and the court denied the DQ motion as moot.
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted by The American Lawyer Daily Business Review on May 11, 2017, in an article entitled “Greenberg Traurig Accused of Trying to Invalidate the Same Patents it Prosecuted” (by Monika Gonzalez Mesa). The article discusses a lawsuit recently filed in California state court against Greenberg Traurig (complaint here), which represented a client in filing a provisional patent application. A different law firm filed a non-utility patent application that claimed priority to the provisional patent application filed by Greenberg Traurig. A patent eventually issued, and the former Greenberg client licensed it to a a third party, which subsequently breached its contract with the patent owner. When the patent owner sued to enforce its contractual rights, Greenberg Traurig, which appeared on behalf of the defendant/licensee, asserted a counterclaim alleging that its former client’s patent is invalid. The former client seeks monetary damages from Greenberg Traurig for breach of fiduciary duty, interference with contractual relations, and professional malpractice arising from Greenberg’s alleged conflict of interest.
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted by IPPro Patents on April 10, 2017, in an article entitled “Chinese Patent Agent Denied USPTO License” (by Barney Dixon). The IPPro Patents article discussed the implications of the Federal Circuit’s April 5 decision affirming the USPTO’s denial of the application of Jinyang Guo to become registered as a patent agent. See Guo v. Lee, No. 2017-1244 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 2017). The Court held that Mr. Guo, a Chinese national and nonimmigrant alien with an electrical engineering background, was limited in the type of work he was permitted to pursue based upon the authority he had received from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which permitted him to pursue temporary employment in the area of electrical and electronics engineering–not patent law. The court reaffirmed decades of precedent that preparation and prosecution of patent applications is the practice of law, even if an engineering or science background may be necessary to provide such services.
On March 29, 2017, Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in IPPro Patents in an article entitled, “IP Lawyer Launches New Ethics Practice” (by Barney Dixon). The article announced the opening of McCabe Law LLC, a new firm dedicated to representing trademark and patent professionals in IP ethics matters, including investigations and disciplinary proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
IPethics & INsights was quoted by World Trademark Review on March 3, 2017, in an article entitled “The Trademark Company Ditches Trademark Registration Services, But the Low-Cost Filing Model Continues Elsewhere” (by Trevor Little). The article discussed the recent exploits of The Trademark Company and the opening of a seemingly related entity called “TTC Business Solutions.”
On March 6, 2017, Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in The American Lawyer in USPTO Suspends Former Niro Junior IP Attorney for 18 Months (Scott Flaherty)
On February 21, 2017, Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in World Trademark Review in its article entitled “Dispute Between USPTO and Controversial Trademark Filer Ends” (by Trevor Little). The World Trademark Review article quotes Mr. McCabe’s IPethics & INsights law blog article (here), which broke the story regarding The Trademark Company‘s Matthew H. Swyers and the conclusion of his 3-year ethics legal battle against the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline. As noted in the IPethics article, the disciplinary proceeding against Mr. Swyers ended when he agreed to be excluded from practicing in trademark and other non-patent matters before the USPTO.
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Legal Ethics: Law360 in IP Atty-Client Privilege Faces Challenge After Halo, by Andrew Strickler (Jan. 20, 2017) (sub. req’d)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in A New Front in the IP Wars, by Scott Graham
The American Lawyer (December 2016)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Is it Disrespectful to Send an Associate to Court? Maybe Not, by Rebekah Mintzer
Law.Com (Sept. 27, 2016)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Order Disqualifying Dentons is Vacated, Leaving Verein Conflicts Issue Unresolved by Joan C. Rogers
Vol. 22, No. 8 ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct (April 20, 2016)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Texas Ruling Sets High Bar for Patent Malpractice Claims by Jess Davis
Published in Law360 (March 30, 2016)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in 5 Tips to Avoid IP Malpractice Suits by Erin Coe
Published in Law360 (Nov. 20, 2015)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Lawyering Without a License: Just Don’t Do It by Rebekah Mintzer
Published by Corporate Counsel (Nov. 12, 2015)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Dentons’ Verein Status Doesn’t Shield it from a Conflict by Scott Flaherty
Published in The American Lawyer (Sept. 28, 2015)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Outside Counsel: You Have the Need to Remain Silent by Rebekah Mintzer
Published in Corporate Counsel(Sept. 1, 2015)
Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Suit Against Finnegan Could be Patent-Practice Game Changer
authored by Scott Graham
Published in The Recorder (Jan. 13, 2015)