• May 23, 2011

Update (May 23, 2011):  Fish & Richardson might have thought they’d win its “pro se lawsuit” without a fight.  Maybe they will.  Maybe they won’t. Time will tell.  (F&R won a default judgment against its former client/current adversary, an Israeli company, but the company, Camtek, is moving to vacate the default judgment that F&R won against it.)

Original post (November 4, 2010):  Fish & Richardson, P.C. has filed a “pro se” complaint against a former client with an unpaid legal bill of over $2 million.

Strictly translated, “pro se” simply means “on behalf of itself” but, in the law, it generally is understood to mean appearing in court without legal counselwhich is forbidden of corporate entities (like Fish & Richardson, P.C.) in Minnesota as in many states, and which is certainly not how Fish & Richardson is proceeding in this case.

The former client, Camtek, represented by F&R, lost a patent infringement action to the tune of $6 million+ by jury verdict in March, 2009 to August Technology (represented by Doug Williams, now of Barnes & Thornburg).  Presumably the on-going F&R v Camtek litigation will shed light on whether Camtek’s delay (or refusal?) to pay F&R comes from disappointment in the outcome, empty coffers, a combination of those factors, or wholly different causes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *