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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT