Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 NOVEMBER 2021

Lit Alerts— November 2021

Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter
Contributor
Arnold & Porter

Arnold & Porter

With over 1,000 lawyers across 16 offices worldwide, Arnold & Porter is renowned for its...

View firm profile
Explore more from Arnold & Porter

In Diamond Services Management Co. v. Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, the US District Court for the District of Columbia declined to enforce subpoenas directed to two law firms that had filed anonymous challenges to a patent.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Patents: Court Rejects Attempt to Identify Anonymous Patent Challenger by Subpoenaing Law Firm Documents

In Diamond Services Management Co. v. Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear, LLP, No. 21-mc-36-TJK-ZMF (D.D.C. Nov. 5. 2021), the US District Court for the District of Columbia declined to enforce subpoenas directed to two law firms that had filed anonymous challenges to a patent. The petitioners sought to identify the law firms' anonymous client behind the patent challenges by subpoenaing documents from the firms.

The case stemmed from the petitioners' apparent suspicion that the law firms' client was C&C Jewelry Manufacturing, Inc. (C&C). Relevant here, C&C had years before settled a challenge it brought to the validity of the same patent. That settlement included an agreement by C&C that it would not challenge (or cause to be challenged) the patent. In 2019 and 2020, however, two law firms filed an anonymous Certificate of Correction and a Reexamination Request with

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from