- Our Blog
Bad news on the doorstep. I couldn’t take one more step. Don McLean – American Pie In the last year, many “bad news” articles have been published arising from IP litigation. Not surprisingly, a growing number of those articles have been based on exceptional case findings and awards of attorneys’ fees under the Octane Fitness standard.
Many years ago, before Al Gore invented the internet and teenagers road their bicycles before dawn, their palms black with ink, to deliver “the paper,” science fiction novelist Douglas Adams observed, “Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.” Truer words today could not be spoken.
In this part, we continue to address some of the ethical risks involving delegation of intellectual property legal services to non-lawyer paraprofessionals. Ethical Responsibilities of Practitioners Regarding Paraprofessionals The USPTO ethics rules state the responsibilities of practitioners over non-practitioners as follows: First, a practitioner who is a partner, and a pr ...
“Individual commitment to a group effort–that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” –Vince Lombardi Every successful IP lawyer, whether a solo practitioner or a senior partner in a mega-firm, has one thing in common: a great support team of secretaries, legal assistants, technical advisors, and paralegals.
By all accounts, Jeremy Blackowicz is a fine trademark attorney with a long and bright future ahead. According to a recent version of his law firm’s website, Mr. Blackowicz was an associate in the Boston, Massachusetts intellectual property department of Day Pitney, LLP. According to the firm’s website, Mr.
An attorney’s suspension from the practice of law is not unlike a jail sentence. Not literally, of course. The suspended attorney is free to do anything they otherwise could do when they were not suspended, with the exception of practicing law. Many practitioners believe that once their suspension period has run its course, the practitioner is “released,” the suspension is aut ...
This is the second of a two-part series on reciprocal discipline in the USPTO. To read the first part click here. Once the notice requirements set forth in Sections 11.24(a) and (b) have been satisfied, Section 11.24(d) dictates the manner in which the disciplinary hearing shall proceed. In accordance with Section 11.24(d), “the USPTO Director shall hear the matter . . . .” 37 C.F.R. § 11.
On May 15, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted a defense motion disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel in a patent infringement action due to a former client conflict of interest. Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 14-1480-RGA (D. Del. May 15, 2015) (order here). Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc.
Consider the following – a patent attorney is investigated and charged by her state bar for violating the state’s code of ethics. The patent attorney believes her state law license is not particularly relevant or necessary because 100% of her practice is dedicated to patent prosecution. Therefore, to make the state bar matter “go away” with as little pain as possible, she accep ...
Arizona Bar IP Section Hot for Ethics May 20, 2015 Michael E. McCabe, Jr. Continuing Legal Education On Friday, May 15, I was honored to be a presenter at the Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the Arizona Bar, held in beautiful Scottsdale, Arizona. Roberta Tepper of the State Bar of Arizona and I went a full two hours, providing the section members wit ...
On May 15, 2015, the USPTO Director issued an Order suspending Seattle, Washington-based patent and trademark attorney Nam D. Dao for six months for allowing multiple patent and trademark applications to go abandoned without client knowledge or consent, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to cooperate with the Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s ethics investigation.
One of the lesser publicized changes to patent law made by the America Invents Act was the amendment to Title 35, Section 32, which included two separate limitations periods for USPTO disciplinary complaints. As amended, Section 32 states a USPTO disciplinary proceeding must be commenced: not later than the earlier of either the date that is 10 years after the date on which t ...
Talk about a close call. Patent attorney Howard Shipley is no doubt breathing a sigh of relief today after the Supreme Court dismissed its December 8, 2014, Order to Show Cause why Mr. Shipley should not be sanctioned. The Court issued its rare Show Cause Order after Mr. Shipley filed what his counsel characterized as an “unorthodox” petition for writ of certiorari. Mr.
Intellectual Property law firms often receive substantive documents, including original applications and amendments, with “instructions” from their client to file the paper in the USPTO, essentially as is. And just as often, IP counsel dutifully follow their clients’ orders and simply have a non-lawyer “clean up” the document so it “looks” right and, without any substantive re ...
The Intellectual Property Ethics Bar lost a luminary this weekend with the passing, on February 28, 2015, of Paul A. Vapnek. Mr. Vapnek was 86. “Preeminent.” “A mentor.” “‘Dean’ of legal ethics in California,” were just some of the words used to describe Mr. Vapnek in an article published in the March 2013, edition of the California Bar Journal.