Legal Opinion
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften E v. v. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided October 14, 2009No. Civil Action 09-11168-PBSPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
SARIS, District Judge.
I. Introduction
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften E.V. (“Max-Planck”) brought this action against the law firm Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PC (“Wolf Greenfield”), alleging that its attor neys, 1 Wolf Greenfield, have an impermissible conflict of interest because they represent joint clients with adverse interests in the prosecution of a patent application before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Max-Planck asserted state law claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty, and requested a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Danca v. Private Health Care Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1999
- Biw Deceived v. Local S6, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Iamaw District Lodge 4Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1997
- Hunter Douglas, Inc. v. Harmonic Design, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der Wissenschaften E v. v. Wolf Greenfield & Sacks, PCDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2010
- Tierney v. Town of FraminghamDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2018
- Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissen-Schaften E.V. v. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical ResearchDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2011
- Tierney v. Town of FraminghamDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 2018