- “[A] Hong Kong-based technology company has moved to disqualify Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP from a federal case in Massachusetts. The dispute centers around allegations that Meta Platforms and Oakley Inc. have infringed on patents with their smart glasses technology.”
- “The tech company argues that the involvement of Morgan Lewis could pose conflicts of interest, given its ties to related industries and prior engagements… due to presumed conflicts that may arise from the firm’s prior interactions with the tech sector, potentially compromising its ability to represent its clients without bias.”
- “The patents in question involve cutting-edge innovations in smart eyewear, a rapidly evolving field with significant financial stakes. This legal maneuver highlights ongoing tensions between established tech giants and emergent firms seeking to protect their intellectual property.”
Read the motion: “MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP” —
- “Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP’s (“Morgan Lewis”) conflict-of-interest arises from its access to confidential information obtained during its representation of Kopin Corporation (“Kopin”). The personnel who founded Kopin and developed and operated its smart-glasses business unit later founded Solos Technology Limited (“Solos”). For decades, Morgan Lewis has represented Kopin, including in matters directly connected to Solos’ corporate separation. As part of that separation, intellectual-property assets underlying the smart-eyewear business were transferred from Kopin to Solos, and Kopin retained a minority ownership interest in Solos. The separation required the evaluation and transfer of the very technologies implicated in this action.”
- “Specifically, Morgan Lewis represented Kopin in a series of technology transactions through which Solos acquired the smart-eyewear technologies and associated intellectual-property rights now at issue. Morgan Lewis’ work included advising on an asset sale, patent assignment agreement, and license agreement governing the patents asserted in this litigation, as well as related patent applications and priority claims (the “Asserted Patents”). These engagements necessarily required Morgan Lewis to structure ownership, licensing, and scope of rights concerning the same technology and patent assets disputed here.”
“Accordingly, there is substantial relationship between Morgan Lewis’ prior work for Kopin and the subject of this case. Solos need not demonstrate that Morgan Lewis is using confidential information to Solos’ disadvantage because the risk that confidential information may be used is presumed. In light of that presumption, allowing Morgan Lewis to continue to appear in this case would erode confidence in the fairness of the adjudicative process and risk tainting the litigation. Disqualification eliminates these risks and is warranted.”
Meta risk related: “Mark Zuckerberg’s Team Reprimanded for Wearing Meta Glasses to Court.”
“Supreme Court adopts automated recusal software to avoid ethics conflicts” —
- “The Supreme Court said Tuesday [2/17] that it will start using software to assist in justices’ decisions to recuse themselves from cases that present a potential conflict of interest.”
“A brief press release issued by the court described an electronic matching process already used by some lower courts to compare a - case’s parties to lists judges assemble of individuals and organizations they have ties to. A 2023 code of conduct statement from the justices said they were considering adopting such a tool themselves.”
- “‘This software will be used to run automated recusal checks by comparing information about parties and attorneys in a case with lists created by each Justice’s chambers,’ the press release said. ‘The system was designed and created by the Court’s Office of Information Technology in cooperation with the Court’s Legal Office and Clerk’s Office.'”
- “The court announced it was embracing the software as it rolled out tweaks to its rules that instructed parties to include their stock ticker symbols in filings to be used by the new software.”
- “Gabe Roth, who heads the court reform organization Fix the Court, said Tuesday’s announcement was a positive step, but noted that lower courts have been using similar software since 2007 and questioned why it took more than two years for the justices to embrace the tool they said they were considering in 2023.”
- “The Supreme Court’s approach to ethics is notoriously opaque, and the 2023 statement came only after an unprecedented scrutiny of lavish trips taken by members of the court — and particularly, Justice Clarence Thomas — that went unreported on financial disclosure forms, despite being subsidized by others. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch have also been criticized for not recusing in cases that involved the publishing companies that financed their book deals.”
- “The justices police their own obligations to judicial ethics, with no outside body holding them accountable to the rules that govern the rest of the judiciary.”
- “While justices will publicly indicate that they have recused from a case, only some will also give any sort of reason for why they’re doing so.”
Last week, the Bressler Risk Blog reached out to the noted Supreme Court contact for comment and detail on the software itself. At this time, no comments or clarifications have been provided.