IP: Subject matter conflicts of interest in patent prosecution – Training your team
You must train your company-side team to recognize and document competitors and potential competitors, along with ensuring that information gets to you.
March 11, 2014 at 04:00 AM
9 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 next two articles followed by discussing how to work the problem from both the law firm side and the inside counsel side. This article is going to focus on practical steps to train your team, and by “your team”, we are referring to both your company's team (legal, technology, sales, management) and your outside legal team.
As mentioned in earlier articles, you must train your company-side team to recognize and document competitors and potential competitors, along with ensuring that information gets to you. The first step to this process is to train key members of management and employees as to why this is important, and it isn't just about subject matter conflicts of interest.
As inside counsel, you should have an active list of companies and individuals who are or could be competitors. Under the America Invents Act, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) established a post-grant opposition procedure. The European Patent Office already has one in place. A list of companies and individuals allows you to set up intellectual property and technology watches that alert you when they file trademarks, patent applications and put out press releases. However, it is important to move quickly under the patent post-grant opposition procedure, because you have to make a decision to pursue, gather the information you will need, and file the petition within a few months of allowance.
The sales team should receive regular training so that if they are at a trade show or online, and see something that appears to be competitive or they receive a report from a customer, they understand the importance and process for documenting that instance. Former employees should be added to this system, because they may start a competing business or assist their current employers in developing competing products; and therefore, human resources should receive training as well. This type of training, in general, will make your entire team better at helping the business.
Your company-side team should also be trained regarding interactions with outside counsel. As has been discussed in depth in earlier articles, providing information to outside counsel without first checking with the internal legal team should be avoided and training as to why that is an issue should be provided. This training is also ideal, because it can also provide information as to who is the client (the company) and who is not (the employees, etc).
The next question is who is going to design and provide the company-side training. Initially, it is appropriate to reach out to outside counsel to provide this training. Outside patent counsel is probably better able to develop presentations and accompanying materials, because this information benefits all of their corporate clients. Once the general training materials are developed and utilized, the company may decide to develop additional training materials on their own that are better suited to its specific business.
A complete and two-way training program also involves your company-side team training outside counsel. Ideally, technical and sales teams should review their work with outside counsel quarterly. If outside counsel adds new attorneys to their patent team, those attorneys should be asked to participate in this training as well. This information will inform outside counsel as to how your business operates, how your products or services are advertised, sold and protected. It will also help outside counsel spot issues that might be relevant to your company, such as new initiatives by the USPTO, labor and employment issues, and legal developments with competitors or similar businesses that may be suitable for future training.
The final question is: How often should training take place? For some groups at the company, such as human resources and management, training may be appropriate once or twice a year. Other groups, such as the technical groups and sales team, should receive regular quarterly training. Written resources should be provided online or as a company intellectual property manual that is provided during hiring and returned to the company, if the employee leaves.
The final article in this series will summarize the information provided in this series, along with outlining a practical timeline for inside counsel to use when considering competitors, potential competitors and subject matter conflicts of interest.
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 next two articles followed by discussing how to work the problem from both the law firm side and the inside counsel side. This article is going to focus on practical steps to train your team, and by “your team”, we are referring to both your company's team (legal, technology, sales, management) and your outside legal team.
As mentioned in earlier articles, you must train your company-side team to recognize and document competitors and potential competitors, along with ensuring that information gets to you. The first step to this process is to train key members of management and employees as to why this is important, and it isn't just about subject matter conflicts of interest.
As inside counsel, you should have an active list of companies and individuals who are or could be competitors. Under the America Invents Act, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) established a post-grant opposition procedure. The European Patent Office already has one in place.
The sales team should receive regular training so that if they are at a trade show or online, and see something that appears to be competitive or they receive a report from a customer, they understand the importance and process for documenting that instance. Former employees should be added to this system, because they may start a competing business or assist their current employers in developing competing products; and therefore, human resources should receive training as well. This type of training, in general, will make your entire team better at helping the business.
Your company-side team should also be trained regarding interactions with outside counsel. As has been discussed in depth in earlier articles, providing information to outside counsel without first checking with the internal legal team should be avoided and training as to why that is an issue should be provided. This training is also ideal, because it can also provide information as to who is the client (the company) and who is not (the employees, etc).
The next question is who is going to design and provide the company-side training. Initially, it is appropriate to reach out to outside counsel to provide this training. Outside patent counsel is probably better able to develop presentations and accompanying materials, because this information benefits all of their corporate clients. Once the general training materials are developed and utilized, the company may decide to develop additional training materials on their own that are better suited to its specific business.
A complete and two-way training program also involves your company-side team training outside counsel. Ideally, technical and sales teams should review their work with outside counsel quarterly. If outside counsel adds new attorneys to their patent team, those attorneys should be asked to participate in this training as well. This information will inform outside counsel as to how your business operates, how your products or services are advertised, sold and protected. It will also help outside counsel spot issues that might be relevant to your company, such as new initiatives by the USPTO, labor and employment issues, and legal developments with competitors or similar businesses that may be suitable for future training.
The final question is: How often should training take place? For some groups at the company, such as human resources and management, training may be appropriate once or twice a year. Other groups, such as the technical groups and sales team, should receive regular quarterly training. Written resources should be provided online or as a company intellectual property manual that is provided during hiring and returned to the company, if the employee leaves.
The final article in this series will summarize the information provided in this series, along with outlining a practical timeline for inside counsel to use when considering competitors, potential competitors and subject matter conflicts of interest.
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 All‘Facebook’s Descent Into Toxic Masculinity’ Prompts Stanford Professor to Drop Meta as Client
6 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
OpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Trending Stories
- 1No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 2Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 3Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 4Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 5Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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