IP malpractice

Quoted in Law360: “$32M Dentons Verdict Could Put Vereins In The Crosshairs”

On February 25, 2020, Michael E. McCabe, Jr. was quoted in Law360 (including the lead story in IP360 and Legal Ethics360), in an article entitled “$32M Dentons Verdict Could Put Vereins in the Crosshairs“ by Aebra Coe. The Law360 article addresses the ethical risks of the Swiss verein structure as it relates to conflicts of […]

Quoted in Law360: “$32M Dentons Verdict Could Put Vereins In The Crosshairs” Read More »

Finnegan Henderson Committed Legal Malpractice By Favoring Marking Blade Inventor Over Corporate Patent Client: Lawsuit

Who is an IP firm’s patent prosecution client when the firm represents a limited liability company and one of its members is the sole inventor?  Does the answer change if the LLC is never actually formed, and no one ever advises the law firm?  Those are just two questions that appear to be at the

Finnegan Henderson Committed Legal Malpractice By Favoring Marking Blade Inventor Over Corporate Patent Client: Lawsuit Read More »

IP Firm Tees Up Dismissal Of Subject Matter Conflict, Negligent Patent Prosecution Malpractice Case

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

IP Firm Tees Up Dismissal Of Subject Matter Conflict, Negligent Patent Prosecution Malpractice Case Read More »

Appeals Court Rejects Belated Alice Defense, Affirms $8 Million Patent Malpractice Award

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected yesterday a now defunct Virginia IP firm’s attempt to rely on 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Supreme Court’s Alice decision as a defense to an $8 million damages award arising from the firm’s negligence in handling a client’s patent application. Protostorm, LLC v.

Appeals Court Rejects Belated Alice Defense, Affirms $8 Million Patent Malpractice Award Read More »

IPO Hosting Webinar on Conflicts of Interest in Patent Prosecution

On Wednesday, February 10, 2016, at 2:00 PM EST, I will be participating in a webinar hosted by IPO Chat Channel  on Conflicts of Interest in Patent Prosecution in light of the recent decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson.  In Maling, a case of first impression, the court rejected the

IPO Hosting Webinar on Conflicts of Interest in Patent Prosecution Read More »

Mass. Sup. Ct. Rules In Favor Of Finnegan, Henderson In Subject Matter Conflicts Malpractice Case

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

Mass. Sup. Ct. Rules In Favor Of Finnegan, Henderson In Subject Matter Conflicts Malpractice Case Read More »

Should A U.S. Federal Court Hear A Foreign Patent Malpractice Case Arising Under Foreign Law?

“What do you mean ‘my patent lapsed?’ You said You Were Going To Pay The Maintenance Fees.” – Anonymous Client The failure to pay a maintenance fee when you agreed to do so can be a lawyer’s worst nightmare.  The nightmare can be made even worse when, according to the patent owner, the patented technology is so

Should A U.S. Federal Court Hear A Foreign Patent Malpractice Case Arising Under Foreign Law? Read More »

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

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 »

Scroll to Top