A story is here; the plaintiffs are seeking $50 million.
(If that link doesn’t work, Google “baker botts 50 million conflict patent texas“)
A story is here; the plaintiffs are seeking $50 million.
(If that link doesn’t work, Google “baker botts 50 million conflict patent texas“)
Stalford said the firm wasn’t conflicted out of representing both companies in a “normal” patent prosecution despite the similarity of the technology because each prosecution is one-on-one with the USPTO. Because different attorneys were working for each client and didn’t share confidential client information with each other, conflicts only arose when Savi and Axcess were positioned as adversaries, according to Stalford.
Leaving aside the specific facts of this case, what do you think about the general proposition that there is no conflict if (a) the clients aren’t currently suing one another and (b) different attorneys are working for each client and don’t share confidential information with each other?
Sounds weak to me.
Patentability may be impacted regardless of one client even agreeing not to sue the other (which may raise other competitive issues), and mere confidentiality of information may not even arise in a conflict of prosecuting two different applications which may (or may not) have overlapping coverage.
If there’s a wall, you reduce (not eliminate, but reduce) liability for trade secret misuse/misuse of confidences. But, adversity has been found in lots of scenarios way short of being across the v from your client. Check out chapter 4 of our book (I think it’s chapter 4).
Shoot. I found it by Google so let me try again…
Going through Google worked – thanks!
That story is behind a paywall. But thanks anyway.
Comments are closed.