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 New York federal judge has ruled. Judge Thomas 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.
April 29, 1999 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
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.
Presented by BigVoodoo
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
Consulting Magazine recognizes leaders in technology across three categories Leadership, Client Service and Innovation.
Shipman is seeking an associate to join our Labor & Employment practice in our Hartford, New Haven, or Stamford office. Candidates shou...
Evergreen Trading is a media investment firm headquartered in NYC. We help brands achieve their goals by leveraging their unwanted assets to...
Duane Morris seeks an associate with 3-4 years of experience to join its Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Group in its Philadelp...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
