## Facts

- Panduit sued All States in the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of two patents covering one-piece nylon cable ties.
- The Laff firm had long served as All States’s patent counsel and represented All States in a related cable-tie patent suit brought by Bowthorpe-Hellermann, Ltd.
- The Panduit and Bowthorpe cases involved similar technology and proceeded with joint discovery, producing extensive deposition testimony and documents.
- All States asserted an antitrust counterclaim against Panduit alleging conspiratorial restraints of trade; discovery on the counterclaim was stayed pending resolution of the patent claims.
- Robert F. I. Conte joined the Laff firm through a merger; Panduit moved to disqualify Conte and the entire Laff firm based on Conte’s prior association with attorney Joseph L. Lewin.
- Panduit alleged Lewin had previously represented Panduit in cable-tie-related matters and had received confidential information potentially relevant to the litigation.
- The district court granted the motion and disqualified Conte and the Laff firm from representing All States, effectively halting joint discovery.
- All States took an interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit from the disqualification order.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Circuit had appellate jurisdiction to review an interlocutory district court order disqualifying counsel in a patent-infringement case.
2. Whether the district court properly disqualified Conte and imputed any alleged conflict to the entire Laff firm on the record presented.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit exercised jurisdiction and reached the merits of the disqualification order.
- The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- The court rejected, on the existing record, the district court’s blanket firm-wide disqualification without a sufficiently specific, record-based analysis separating any attorney-specific conflict from firm-wide imputation.

## Legal Principles

- An appellate court with jurisdiction over the underlying patent case may review an interlocutory attorney-disqualification order sufficiently connected to that case.
- Disqualification of counsel is an exceptional remedy and requires a careful factual inquiry into the risk of misuse of former-client confidences and the need for the remedy imposed.
- A conflict allegedly attributable to an individual lawyer is not automatically imputed to the lawyer’s entire firm; firm-wide disqualification requires record-supported findings and a tailored analysis.
- Courts must weigh protection of confidences against the client’s interest in continuity of chosen counsel, especially in complex, long-running litigation.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held it could review the interlocutory disqualification order and required a more focused, evidence-based approach to conflicts analysis; it set aside the district court’s broad disqualification to the extent it lacked adequate support and remanded for further proceedings consistent with a narrower assessment.


Panduit Corp. v. All States Plastic Mfg. Co., 744 F.2d 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1984)