ILNews

4 patent lawyers defect from Bose McKinney

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indianapolis office of Taft Stettinius & Hollister is bolstering its intellectual property practice by bringing aboard four patent lawyers from rival Bose McKinney & Evans.

Chief among the new arrivals is partner Jim Coles, who will co-lead Taft’s IP practice with Margaret Lawson, who is based at Taft’s Cincinnati headquarters. The others joining Taft are partners Ryan O. White and Anthony P. Filomena II, and associate Stephen Rost. They begin Monday.

With these additions, Taft extends its services to Raleigh, N.C., where the attorneys have established a client base, according to the firm.

“Certainly, Jim Coles is on the short list of anybody in town,” said Robert Hicks, managing partner of Taft’s local office. “We’ve always had our eye on him but never pursued him.”

Coles, who led Bose McKinney’s IP practice, has 35 years of patent and trademark experience. He worked at the former Jenkins Coffey Hyland Badger & Conard firm when it merged with Barnes & Thornburg in 1982. He remained there until 1996, when he joined Bose McKinney.

Coles said he had been in discussions with Taft’s leaders for about a year but decided to wait until he was satisfied that the firm’s presence in Indianapolis was stable. Taft absorbed former law firm Sommer Barnard two years ago to establish an Indianapolis office.

Taft now has more than 90 lawyers in the city, ranking it as the seventh-largest firm, according to Indianapolis Business Journal statistics. With the new arrivals, the firm now has 13 intellectual property lawyers locally and 28 nationally, according the firm.

“It just seems like a great place to work,” Coles said. “It’s exciting for me, because I’m big into developing new client relationships.”

Besides Cincinnati, Taft’s Ohio offices are in Cleveland, Columbus and Dayton. It also has offices in Covington, Ky.; Phoenix; and Beijing, China.

The firm’s additional resources and lawyers, as well as its larger client base, drew Coles to Taft, he said.

Any lateral moves lawyers make likely can be attributed to the soft economy, said Hal Moore, a partner at Indianapolis-based Maginot Moore & Beck, an intellectual property boutique.

“It reflects that there’s definitely a tightening in the amount of work that’s out there,” he said. “People are seeking to get to the places where they can leverage their skill set and their client contacts.”

The intellectual property practice area gained prominence in the early 1980s when federal courts began recognizing and enforcing stronger patent-protection laws. A decade later, an explosion in software, computer and Internet usage had given rise to new demand for patent, trademark, and copyright safeguards.

Patent attorneys typically have a technical degree in an area such as engineering, chemistry, or physics, and must pass the United States Patent and Trademark Office examination.

Bose McKinney meanwhile is in discussions with intellectual property lawyers to replenish its practice, Managing Partner Jeff Gaither said. The firm has six lawyers in its intellectual property group, including one patent lawyer in Indianapolis and one part-timer in West Lafayette.
“We wish Jim and his group well and think this will be best for both firms,” he said.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT