Posts Tagged: "ethics"

At the May PPAC meeting Ruschke deferred questions on issues relating to possible conflicts of interest and specifically indicated the topic of conflicts would be discussed at PPAC’s next quarterly meeting.The PPAC recently convened once again, this time on Thursday, August 3, 2017. No issues of possible conflicts of interest were raised and there was no mention of the conflicts of interest questions that have raised very serious questions about the appearance of impropriety at the PTAB… The blindfold appearing in the common depiction of Lady Justice is there for a reason. It’s time to acknowledge that and fix this problem so that it never happens again. The USPTO must adopt a Code of Judicial Conduct for Administrative Patent Judges.

Core values are key to avoiding ethical violations. This is because most ethics violations are not intentional. They occur because decisions are being made based on the wrong values (i.e., increased revenues alone) or on emotion (i.e., fear that taking more time to evaluate will be disastrous). Establishing sound core values and strong decision making emotional intelligence skills will help ensure that you do not commit an unintended ethics violation.

Oracle and Parallel Networks settled that arbitration in January 2013. So, more than four years after Jenner & Block lost the Oracle case and abandoned its client, they received nearly $500,000 in additional contingency fees from Parallel Network’s settlement with Oracle – despite the fact that they were not representing Parallel Networks when this January 2013 settlement with Oracle was negotiated and concluded (in point of fact, in January 2013 Jenner & Block was suing Parallel Networks in arbitration). While arbitrator Jerry Grissom’s rationale for awarding millions of dollars to Jenner & Block in contingency fees under his “interpretation” of the CFA is absurd, his acceptance of Jenner & Block’s “just cause” excuse which allowed Jenner & Block to abandon Parallel Networks and still retain a right to get paid, is truly bizarre.

When just looking at the subset of final written decisions resulting from Apple petitions where APJ Clements was on the panel, 24 final written decisions deem all claims invalid while only one decision led to mixed claim findings. There are no cases where a panel including APJ Clements issued a final written decision in review proceedings petitioned by Apple where all claims have been upheld.

The website link provided by the USPTO contains no rules of judicial conduct or codes of judicial conduct, which means that the USPTO has indirectly confirmed that there are no rules or codes of judicial conduct that apply to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). To call this revelation by the USPTO shocking is an understatement. 37 CFR 11.803 clearly contemplates the existence of rules of judicial conduct applicable to APJs, which obviously do not exist. The lack of any judicial rules of conduct or ethical rules specifically tailored for judges on the PTAB is highly informative, and explains why it was possible for at least two PTAB judges to decide post grant challenges filed by former patent defense clients.

Jenner & Block’s demand in the arbitration was for more than $10.2 million in hourly fees, which amounted to more than 70% of the net recovery obtained by Parallel Networks in the Oracle case and more than 110% of the net recovery obtained by Parallel Networks in the QuinStreet case. Jenner & Block justified this extraordinary amount by claiming that it had expended more than 24,000 billable hours in the Delaware Cases during the 18 months that it had represented Parallel Networks. Accepting Jenner & Block’s claim at face value would mean that Jenner & Block attorneys were purportedly billing Parallel Networks at a rate of nearly 44 hours per day, seven days a week, 365 days per year for the entire 18 months period of the representation. This was a rather startling claim given that the Oracle case was lost at the summary judgement stage and that the QuinStreet case never progressed much beyond the discovery phase.

After losing a case on summary judgment, and at a time when Parallel Networks most needed its counsel to fight to overturn the catastrophic summary judgment ruling, Jenner & Block was instead having internal discussions on which course of action would allow Jenner & Block to recover the maximum amount, whether that was to continue or terminate the representation… After subsequently firing the client Jenner & Block interpreted the termination provisions in the representation agreement to give it the right to convert the representation agreement from a contingency fee agreement to an hourly fee agreement… Ultimately, new counsel would prevail on behalf of Parallel Networks on appeal… Jenner’s interpretation of the representation agreement seems to fly in the face of Jenner & Block’s ethical obligation to act as a fiduciary to its client, which requires Jenner & Block to place Parallel Network’s interests before its own. It is difficult to see how Jenner & Block’s interpretation of the representation agreement did anything other than place Jenner & Block’s interests ahead of its client’s interests… Adding insult to injury, the arbitration award for fees was more than the subsequently victorious law firm collected against the infringer on behalf of Parallel Networks, which makes it difficult to understand how the fee collected was not unreasonable as that term is used in ABA Model Rule 1.5, which prohibits attorneys from charging unreasonable fees.

Jenner & Block represented Parallel Networks for 18 months and then lost one of the cases on summary judgment of non-infringement. Four weeks after losing summary judgement, Jenner & Block decided the cases were no longer economically viable, refused to handle the appeal of the adverse summary judgment and advised Parallel Networks that it was terminating its representation in both cases. Parallel Networks retained new legal counsel for the appeal and these new lawyers undid Jenner & Block’s loss when the Federal Circuit vacated the summary judgement order of non-infringement and remanded the case back to Delaware. Parallel Networks eventually settled both cases, including an eight-figure settlement in one of those cases. Incredibly, more than two and a half years after Jenner & Block determined that these cases weren’t economically viable and then decided to abandon its client, Jenner & Block sent a demand letter to Parallel Networks claiming it was entitled to payment of $10.2 million in hourly fees based on the successful outcomes of the cases achieved by a different law firm.

On Thursday, May 11, 2017, I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request (see bottom) to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). My FOIA request seeks a copy of any and all rules of judicial conduct, ethical policies and/or codes of professional or judicial conduct that apply to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

The blindfold appearing in the common depiction of Lady Justice is there for a reason. According to Wikipedia, Lady Justice has been depicted with a blindfold since at least the 16th century, with the blindfold representing impartiality. When impartiality of the system, or the judges who are charged with administering the system, is questioned it is a very big deal… We have found yet another example of a situation where an PTAB judge has issued a decision and is participating in post grant administrative proceedings as a judge in a case where a former client is the petitioner.

Had APJ Clements not been a member of the PTAB and one of the patent owners – let’s say Smartflash for example – had come to him and asked him to represent them in a PTAB proceeding against Apple, the conflict of interest question would have been a much easier question. Having represented Apple previously as defense counsel it would seem that the duty to a former client under 37 CFR 11.109 would prevent Clements from representing the patent owner adverse to Apple and now charging Apple with patent infringement, which is a prerequisite to the filing of a CBM petition. Had Clements represented Smartflash in any of the CBM proceedings brought by Apple on which he sat as a judge there would seem to be a direct and irreconcilable violation of the ethics rules applicable to patent attorneys and patent agents. How truly ironic, and pathetically sad, it would be if the ethical bar set for practitioners is so much higher than the ethical bar the USPTO sets for its own Administrative Patent Judges. How could that possible? In what universe would it make any sense to have a lower ethical bar for judges deciding cases than for patent practitioners?

If an APJ making decisions in a case within 18 months of having represented a former client complies with whatever USPTO conflict rules or guidelines apply to PTAB judges, the USPTO conflict rules or guidelines are too lenient and must be changed. PTAB just should not be deciding cases involving post grant petitions filed by former defense clients, and under no circumstances is 18 months long enough to alleviate any concerns of bias or take away the appearance of impropriety… If identification of the real party-in-interest is so important perhaps that transparency should be a two-way street. Perhaps there should be a public Code of Conduct for PTAB judges, and perhaps the USPTO should give stakeholders the opportunity to be heard on whether 2 years is an appropriate length of time to wash away a conflict of interest, or the appearance of impropriety that exists when deciding cases dealing with former clients. My guess is most patent owners would be adamantly opposed to PTAB judges deciding petitions challenging patents brought by their former clients.

The Hearing Order concluded that the parties raised sufficient issues of material fact to warrant the ready-to-go Hearing to determine when respondent’s alleged misconduct was actually “made known” to an officer or employee of the USPTO pursuant to §32. Thus, the Hearing would be able to afford the fact-finder the opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses and draw inferences from the facts. Further, as the parties were already prepared for the Hearing on the merits of the case, the Judge believed that he would entertain testimony on both the SOL issue and the disciplinary sanction sought by the OED Director. Thus, the Hearing Order determined that the Judge found issues of material fact existed as to when the misconduct forming the basis for the disciplinary proceeding was “made known” to an officer or employee of the Office.