A Primer on the Texas Bar Disciplinary System | Seana Willing | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Polsinelli Podcast - Avoiding Professional Liability
Pursuant to Part 130 , attorneys are obligated to undertake an investigation of a case. But is an attorney responsible for ignorance of facts which the client neglected to disclose? “No,” says the Commercial Division....more
In Xitronix Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., No. 2016-2746 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2018), the Federal Circuit considered whether it or a regional circuit had jurisdiction over an appeal of a case raising only Walker Process antitrust...more
Solar Dynamics, Inc. v. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, P.C., 2017 WL 519314 (Fla. 2017) - Brief Summary - A Florida appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over a legal malpractice action that...more
Conflicts of Interest — Subject Matter Conflicts — Can IP Attorneys Simultaneously Represent Two Clients That Are Prosecuting Patents for Similar Inventions? - Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner,...more
Runberg, Inc. d/b/a Zephyrs v. McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, et al. - Case Number: 652543/2014 - Runberg owns U.S. Patent No. 8,216,021 (“Engineered push up insert”), which claims a kidney-shaped push up insert...more
For nearly two decades, the Federal Circuit has applied a lenient standard for federal jurisdiction that routinely sweeps state law claims into the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts merely because the claims...more
In This Issue: • State Courts Should Handle Patent Malpractice Cases • “A” and “An” in Claims Mean “One or More” • No Direct Infringer Needs to be Identified in Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Indirect...more
In This Issue: Patents - Supreme Court: State Court Has Jurisdiction over a Legal Malpractice Claim; Nothing Non-Obvious About Applying Pre-Existing Technology to the Internet; The Federal Circuit Is Not the...more
In Gunn v. Minton, the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have exclusive jurisdiction over patent malpractice claims. Under 28 USC § 1338(a), federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases “arising under any...more
The Supreme Court of the United States, in Gunn v. Minton, determined that a Texas state court had jurisdiction over a legal malpractice claim, even though resolving the claim required the state court to address an issue of...more
On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Gunn v. Minton. The heart of this matter is whether the state-based malpractice action based upon an underlying patent infringement lawsuit may be...more
In the course of deciding that malpractice cases against patent lawyers belong in state courts (when there is no diversity of citizenship), the United States Supreme Court has issued an important ruling on the scope of...more
On February 20, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the critical question of where plaintiffs can or must sue when their claims implicate patent law but are not traditional patent law claims. See Gunn v....more
A patent issue exerted its Circe-like effect on the Supreme Court again today in Gunn v. Minton, a decision overruling the Texas Supreme Court on the question of whether the existence of a patent issue in a legal malpractice...more
On January 16, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Gunn. The heart of the matter is whether the state-based malpractice action may be heard in state court or whether it must be heard in...more
Earlier we reported on both the U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in the Gunn v. Minton case decided by the Supreme Court of Texas and the submission of Petitioner's and several supporting amicus curiae briefs. Gunn is...more
Earlier this year we reported on the granting of certiorari for the case of Gunn v. Minton from the Supreme Court of Texas. The case involves a claim of attorney malpractice in an underlying patent litigation matter. The...more