Patent work done by Pennie & Edmonds for an herbal supplement-maker in 1997 does not bar the New York firm from representing a third party suing its former client over the supplement’s name, a federal judge has ruled.

Southern District Chief Judge Thomas P. Griesa declined a motion to disqualify the 150-lawyer firm after noting substantial differences in the previous and current work and a “screen” erected between the trademark and patent lawyers handling it.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]