For the past year, Portus Singapore Pte. Ltd. (“Portus”), a former client of the now-defunct Kenyon & Kenyon (“Kenyon”) law firm, has been trying to get a claim for legal malpractice to stick against its former IP counsel. So far, Portus’ efforts have been unsuccessful. On July 28, 2017, Portus took its third bite at […]
On December 23, 2015, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued an opinion dismissing a malpractice complaint filed against an IP law firm for failure to state a claim. See Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. A copy of the Massachusetts SJC’s opinion is here. For our previous discussions about the facts and procedural
The September 8, 2015, oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in Maling v. Finnegan Henderson will be broadcast live by webcast. For those interested in watching the oral argument, which is scheduled to be held sometime between 9:00 AM and 1:00 PM, click on the link at Mass. Supreme Judicial Court. As previously reported
Live Webcast Of Mass. High Court Hearing on Patent Subject Matter Conflicts Read More »
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
How close is too close? That is a question that has perplexed patent attorneys who prepare and prosecute patent applications for multiple clients in the same, or similar, fields of technology. At least one state appeals court has decided to take this question head on. As previously reported in our January 2, 2015, posting, the Justices of
Mass. Sup. Ct. Schedules Oral Argument on Subject Matter Conflicts in Patent Prosecution Read More »
