Firm Disqualified Because Preliminary Injunction Is "Directly Adverse" To Another Client

Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd.

Disqualifying Celgard's appellate counsel due to a conflict of interest, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a non-precedential opinion, found that Celgard's preliminary injunction preventing LG Chem from supplying batteries was directly adverse to the appellate firm's client who purchased batteries from LG Chem.  Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., Case Nos. 14-1675, -1733, -1806 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 10, 2014) (Dyk, J.).

Celgard, a manufacturer of lithium battery components, filed suit alleging that LG Chem's manufacture and sale of lithium batteries infringed a Celgard patent.  After filing the complaint, Celgard moved for a preliminary injunction preventing LG Chem from supplying the allegedly infringing products to customers, including Apple.  Celgard sent Apple a copy of the motion and suggested that Apple and Celgard work to find a mutually beneficial arrangement to resolve the infringement issues.