I stumbled across this order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the claim against Baker Botts, which is now being tried in Texas state court. (Hat tip to the ND Tex. blog.) The judge, I think correctly, held that there was no subject matter jurisdiction over a conflict of interest claim arising during patent prosecution. It is interesting because it gives some more detail about the alleged wrong-doing.
There’s an unaddressed choice of law issue lurking here, which, I assume, the parties have since addressed! (Most courts and ethical rules recognize that a lawyer should be subject to one set of rules at a particular time; usually, if a matter is before a tribunal, the tribunal’s rules apply.)