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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT