Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC
927 F. Supp. 2d 390
N.D. Tex.2013Background
- Galderma moved to disqualify Vinson & Elkins after V&E began representing Actavis in a related patent suit while also advising Galderma on other matters.
- V&E had an open-ended, pre-approved waiver of future conflicts in the 2003 engagement letter, signed by Galderma’s in-house General Counsel, Quinton Cassady.
- Galderma previously consented to V&E representing adversaries in matters not substantially related to V&E’s Galderma engagement.
- In June 2012 Galderma filed IP litigation against Actavis; V&E, already having represented Actavis in IP matters, began representing Actavis in this suit without separate Galderma consent.
- Galderma asserted lack of informed consent to the broad waiver and sought disqualification; the court denied the motion, finding consent was informed under the Model Rules.
- The court held that the 2003 waiver, given sophisticated client status and independent in-house counsel, constituted informed consent to V&E representing adverse parties in substantially unrelated matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galderma gave informed consent to the waiver of future conflicts | Galderma argues consent was not informed due to non-specific waiver | V&E argues sophistication and independent counsel made waiver valid | Yes, informed consent was given |
| Whether the disclosure was reasonably adequate for a client to form informed consent | Galderma contends disclosure was open-ended and inadequate | V&E asserts adequate disclosures given client sophistication | Yes, disclosure reasonably adequate under Model Rules |
| Whether independent counsel affected the informed consent analysis | Independent representation should make consent more robust | Independent counsel reduces need for extensive disclosure | Yes, independent counsel supports informed consent |
Key Cases Cited
- In re American Airlines, Inc., 972 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1992) (ethical standards guiding disqualification and conflicts)
- In re Dresser, 972 F.2d 540, 972 F.2d 540 (5th Cir. 1992) (concurrent conflicts and informed consent framework)
- U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. U.S. Aviation Insurance Co., 50 F.3d 1304 (5th Cir. 1995) (consideration of ethics standards and procedural weight in disqualification)
- In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005) (informed consent standards under Third Circuit guidance)