Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

California Legal

  •  
  •  

Times Square at night, file. REUTERS Hugh Gentry

Federal Circuit revives Morgan Lewis malpractice case

4/23/2012 COMMENTS (0)

April 23 (Reuters) - Landmark Screens LLC can pursue a legal malpractice suit against Morgan, Lewis & Bockius over a botched patent application, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., revived the suit, the latest turn in Landmark's six-year attempt to recover damages from its former patent counsel. The decision overturns a California federal judge's ruling that dismissed the case on statute-of-limitations grounds.

The dispute dates to 2002 when Landmark's lawyer Thomas Kohler, then at Pennie & Edmonds, filed a patent application for an outdoor light-emitting diode electronic billboard for Landmark. In a follow-up application, Kohler left out some key information, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which rejected the filing as incomplete.

In order to qualify for a patent, an invention must be different from all previously-published materials describing similar inventions, or "prior art." Inventors have a one-year grace period after their first application to file a subsequent application without losing the novelty of their invention.

Kohler did not respond to the Patent and Trademark Office's rejection until after the one-year anniversary of the first application, the opinion said. At that point, all patent claims in the first application became prior art against the subsequent application, and all claims in the second filing were lost.

"This was a devastating outcome for Landmark. Nevertheless, neither Kohler nor MLB divulged the true nature or seriousness of the problem for another six months," the opinion said.

Landmark sued in California state court in 2005, but the court found that the case belonged in federal court. That same day, Landmark filed its claims again in federal court in San Jose, California.

Federal district judge Jeremy Fogel granted summary judgment to Morgan Lewis and Kohler in 2011. He found that Landmark had been aware of the issues for at least three years before it filed the suit in federal court, and had missed the state deadline for bringing fraud claims.

But a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington disagreed, ruling that the clock stopped running while the lawsuit was pending in state court.

The panel also overturned an order by the lower court that had capped potential damages for the fraud claim.

Judge Kathleen O'Malley, in a separate concurring opinion, called on the full Federal Circuit to reconsider whether state law malpractice claims that involve patent law actually belong in federal court. She accused the Federal Circuit's 2007 decision to claim jurisdiction over patent malpractice claims of wreaking havoc with parties' "well-settled expectations" that such claims belong in state court.

Elliot Peters, a lawyer at Keker & Van Nest who represented Morgan Lewis and Kohler, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The firm did not immediately provide comment.

Sanford Rosen, a lawyer for Landmark, said his client was pleased with the decision.

The case is Landmark Screens LLC v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 11-1297.

For Landmark: Sanford Rosen of Rosen, Bien & Galvan.

For Morgan Lewis et al: Elliot Peters of Keker & Van Nest.

(Reporting By Terry Baynes)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters