Federal Court DQs Law Firm in Patent Infringement Case, Rejecting Advance Conflict Waiver

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Conflicts of Interest, IP Ethics, Legal Ethics, Litigation Ethics, Patent Ethics, Patent Litigation EthicsLeave a Comment

A federal court in Alabama yesterday disqualified a law firm from representing a new client in a patent infringement case against a current firm client. In Southern Visions, LLP v. Red Diamond, Inc. (N.D. Ala. Feb. 26, 2019), the court held that Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (“Bradley”) was ethically barred from representing one client (Southern Visions) against another client (Red … Read More

All In The Family: The Tricky Ethics Of Corporate Affiliate Conflicts

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Conflicts of Interest, Disqualification, IP Ethics, Litigation Ethics, Litigation Ethics, Patent Litigation EthicsLeave a Comment

If you represent a corporation, do you represent all entities in the corporate family? For example, if you represent a parent company, does that mean you also represent the parent’s subsidiaries? Does it matter if a subsidiary is wholly-owned vs. partially owned? How about if you represent a subsidiary–does that mean you also represent its parent or grandparent entity in … Read More

Intellectual Ventures Prevails In Capital One Antitrust Suit

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Antitrust litigation, District Court Litigation, Litigation Ethics, Patent litigation, Patent Litigation EthicsLeave a Comment

On Friday, a Maryland federal judge granted summary judgment in favor of Intellectual Ventures on Capital One’s claims that IV’s acquisition and enforcement of patents relating to banking services violated U.S. antitrust law.  In a 53-page memorandum Opinion, Judge Paul W. Grimm found that IV’s conduct in obtaining and enforcing its patents was immune from antitrust liability based on the … Read More

Sue-And-Settle NPE Patent Litigation Tactics May Violate USPTO Ethics Rules

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Litigation Ethics, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, Patent Ethics, Patent Litigation Ethics, USPTO Ethics Investigation5 Comments

Non-practicing entities who engage in a pattern of filing numerous lawsuits without any intention of testing the merits, solely to extract low ball settlements, should take note that the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) takes a keen interest in such conduct.  A recent “exceptional case” decision in a patent case from federal court in California should give pause … Read More

Untying The IP Ethics Knot

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Continuing Legal Education, IP Ethics, Legal Ethics, Litigation Ethics, MalpracticeLeave a Comment

Do you worry about ethics in your IP practice?  If not, you should.  There is way too much going on out there, and not knowing what is happening can leave you exposed to ethics and malpractice risk. If you can spare 90 minutes, tune in tomorrow from 1:00-2:30 pm EST for the ABA-IPL Landslide Webinar Series, entitled “Identifying and Resolving Ethical … Read More

USPTO Suspends Second Ex-Niro IP Attorney For 18 Months

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.District Court Litigation, Duty to Tribunal, IP Litigation Sanctions, Litigation Ethics, Patent Litigation Ethics, PTO Ethics DecisionsLeave a Comment

It’s deja vu all over again: a second ex-Niro IP attorney has received an 18-month suspension from practice before the USPTO. Attorney Paul C. Gibbons, one of four attorneys from the now defunct Niro, Haller & Niro who were sanctioned for vexatious litigation arising from the firm’s representation of NPE Intellect Wireless, settled a disciplinary complaint with the USPTO Director … Read More

USPTO Suspends Former Niro IP Attorney For 18 Months Following Patent Litigation Sanctions

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.District Court Litigation, Duty to Tribunal, IP Litigation Sanctions, Litigation Ethics, Patent Litigation Sanctions, PTO Ethics Decisions2 Comments

The fallout from the Niro, Haller & Niro law firm’s doomed litigation on behalf of Intellect Wireless continues.  For patent litigator David J. Mahalek, the most junior member of the Niro litigation team, the disciplinary shoe of the USPTO did not just drop–it kicked him in the teeth with an 18-month suspension of his law license. Readers may recall that, … Read More

CAFC Finds Patent Holder’s Position On Standing “Unreasonable” And “Remarkably Weak,” Affirms Atty Fees Award

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.District Court Litigation, IP Litigation Sanctions, Litigation Ethics, Patent Ethics, Patent Litigation Ethics, Patent Litigation SanctionsLeave a Comment

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, Inc., No. 2015-1406, the Federal … Read More