Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. Ati Technologies, Inc.

741 F.Supp.2d 970 (2010)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P filed the lawsuit in October 2006, alleging that Ds infringed three patents related to graphics processing technology. Ds claimed invalidity and unenforceability. P abandoned its claims as to one patent; the court granted Ds' motion for summary judgment as to a second patent, and P conceded that it could not prove infringement as to the third patent. Ds persuaded the court that the issue of invalidity was not moot and a trial was held on the question of whether several claims in the '327 patent were anticipated by prior art. A jury found in favor of P. Between the time P filed the complaint and judgment was entered, the parties filed more than 100 motions. The Court of Appeals upheld the jury's verdict regarding invalidity, but it concluded that the court had misconstrued two terms in the '327 patent. The appeals court remanded the case for a determination of whether computer chips and processors made and sold by Ds infringe the '327 patent under the new constructions. P filed its motion for disqualification soon after the court of appeals issued its decision. Between December 2006 and October 2007, Leichtman performed legal work in this case for P in his capacity as a partner at Morgan, Lewis and Brockius, one of the law firms representing P. Leichtman left Morgan Lewis in October 2007 to become a partner at Lovells (now Hogan Lovells). In February 2010, while this case was on appeal and after oral argument, Leichtman took a job as a partner at Robins Kaplan's New York office. The parties agree that Leichtman may not perform any work for Ds in this case. The question is whether Robins Kaplan must be disqualified as well. Ds claim that Leichtman performed a relatively small amount of work for P and because Robins Kaplan has employed a screening protocol in this case to prevent Leichtman, who works in New York, from disclosing any information he might have to the lawyers in this case, who work in Minneapolis.

P has few qualms about Robins Kaplan's screening mechanism. Ps claim that Leichtman performed so much work on the case that screening cannot be used to rebut the presumption that Leichtman has shared confidential information with Ds' lawyers working on this case or will do so in the future.