Here is a convoluted intelectual property – patent legal malpractice case. Thelen Reid answers, and with its answer, raises more questions.  Here, from Law.Com:

"Thelen argued that the company "and/or" third parties contributed to the IP losses and that IVI waived the alleged conflicts of interest. The firm also said the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

Thelen acknowledged that an associate reassigned an IVI patent to a Gardiner company and that an alleged Gardiner company replaced an IVI subsidiary as a party to a research agreement with Johns Hopkins University. However, Thelen’s lawyers wrote, the latter change was made "pursuant to instructions from e-Smart," another IVI subsidiary.

IVI alleged that Thelen withdrew from representing it in a suit against Gardiner when his counsel demanded the firm do so because of its alleged concurrent representation of both parties. Thelen only confirmed receiving the letter from Gardiner’s counsel and later withdrawing. "