Hidden traps: Subject matter conflicts of interest in patent prosecution — Client disclosures
It is important to remember that in the instance of subject matter conflicts of interest, you should disclose as much and as little as possible to allow the conflict search to be effective.
February 25, 2014 at 03:00 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article series is focusing on subject matter conflict of interest issues that are a significant concern for attorneys. Patent practitioners have an additional layer of concern with respect to subject matter conflicts of interest. This type of additional conflict search is not related to the inventors, assignee or research team, but is directly related to the patent application disclosure.
The first article introduced the topic and discussed generally why it is an important consideration. The second article reviewed in depth a recent case brought by a former client against a firm that involved this type of conflict, how it developed and the complications that exist in this area of conflicts. The last article discussed methods of implementing an effective way of identifying subject matter conflicts with prospective clients, before engaging with that prospective client.
As inside counsel, there are two roads ahead of you when you receive a new invention disclosure from your technical team: Send it to current outside counsel who handles this general subject matter for your company, or retain new outside counsel to handle the patent search and prosecution. There are different ways to approach each situation as inside counsel.
It is important to remember that in the instance of subject matter conflicts of interest, you should disclose as much and as little as possible to allow the conflict search to be effective. If counsel is given too much information and a subject matter conflict of interest is discovered, that counsel may have information that will influence their work on other cases. In some instances, outside counsel may unknowingly use information provided by you in the prosecution of another client's case. In others, the outside counsel relationship may become compromised, such that their work with your company is no longer feasible.
In the first potential road, you are sending the new invention disclosure to current outside counsel who handles this general subject matter for your company. At this point, it is an excellent time to review the list of competitors that you have on file with the outside firm, confirm that this list is in their conflict system as “adverse parties,” and ensure that there are no conflicts with that list. One way to do this is to make the list of current competitors a part of your invention disclosure form, which would allow your company to list the potential competitors for that technology, as opposed to another invention disclosure from another division of your company — if you have more than one type of technology base. This practice is also good to consider, because competitors come in and out of the market all the time. Treat each invention disclosure as a brand new matter that requires as much scrutiny as any other matter, such as a new litigation matter. This allows you and your outside counsel to have a clear understanding of potential issues.
Since this outside counsel handles other related work from your company, once you get past clearing the list of competitors, it may be very easy to disclose more of the invention disclosure to counsel, so that they can get a sense of how this disclosure is related to others that they handle for your company and whether there are any issues. If this disclosure is something new for your company or for your outside counsel, it is recommended to send a general overview of the disclosure or strategic key words, so that they can run a subject matter conflict search before sending the full disclosure.
If you are hiring new counsel, it is even more important to limit the amount of information provided to the firm, while still sending enough to allow them to effectively search for subject matter conflicts. Once you get past the step of asking them to search a general class of businesses and then your competitors list, you should then proceed to subject matter inquiries. This process may be more like a give-and-take with you asking potential outside counsel if they handle any patent work related to “food processing” or “shelf stable foods.” If they indicate that they don't, then you should consider sending more information, such as a description of the class of food items or the general processing steps. It may be appealing to find an outside counsel who has experience handling other companies in the same field as yours, but it is likely that subject matter conflicts will arise and get to the point where the working relationship is no longer effective or beneficial for at least one client.
The next article in this series will focus on what kind of training programs should be in place on the side of the company and what to ask outside counsel to provide as training materials for your technical team.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
OpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Meta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
Trending Stories
- 1Bradley Arant, Moore & Van Allen Join Partner Promotions Parade
- 27th Circ. Rejects Liability Claims Against Freight Broker's Hiring Choices
- 3Sullivan & Cromwell Signals 5-Day RTO Expectation as Law Firms Remain Split on Optimal Attendance
- 4CLOSED: These Georgia Courts Won't Open Jan. 10
- 5Volkswagen Hit With Consumer Class Action Alleging Defective SUV Engines
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250