Finnegan Wins in Patent Malpractice Suit, to the Relief of Fellow IP Firms

According to Law360, eyeglass hinge inventor Chris Maling accused Finnegan of malpractice because the firm had secured patents for his invention during the same time that it worked to obtain patents for a competitor. Maling asserted the firm had a conflict of interest and that firms should only be allowed to work on patents for one client in a certain field of technology, but the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that Finnegan’s work for both clients was within the bounds of the Massachusetts rules of Professional Conduct.

In August, 11 law firms with large IP and patent practices, including Pillsbury, filed an amicus brief urging the court to “reject any rule prohibiting lawyers from representing multiple clients in connection with ‘similar’ inventions.” The firms maintained that a decision in Maling’s favor would significantly hamper the work of patent firms and lawyers and that it would disadvantage inventors by restricting their access to patent lawyers.

According to Law360, joining Pillsbury in the brief were Morrison & Foerster LLP, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP, Nixon & Vanderhye PC, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, Schiff Hardin LLP, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Verrill Dana LLP.

Read Law360’s full coverage of the court’s ruling here and the amicus brief here.