Massachusetts Supreme Court rules on patent malpractice case, Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

The Massachusetts Supreme Court found "no conflict of interest" under Rule 1.7 of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct pertaining to conflicts of interests between current clients. The two representations [by Finnegan of Maling and of a competitor in the field of screwless eyeglass hinges ] were not “directly adverse” under the rule because direct adverseness does not arise merely from a conflict of economic interests, but requires “a conflict as to the legal rights and duties of the clients.” As to the legal rights, The Court observed that Maling and his competitor, “were not competing for the same patent, but rather different patents for similar devices.”

link to article in the National Law Review: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/massachusetts-court-clears-patent-prosecutors-malpractice-claims-arising.

One thinks back to the conflict case related to COX-2 inhibitors involving Pennie & Edmonds, Searle, and the University of Rochester.

See the 2007 post on IPBiz:



**
In passing, the National Law Review has an article on the trade secret case: Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Case No. 14-3563 (6th Cir., Nov. 3, 2015) (Norris, J.).(concurrence, White, J) -

Link: http://www.natlawreview.com/article/single-claim-approach-trade-secret-misappropriation#sthash.Jr9aKA99.dpuf