Larson & Larson, P.A. v. TSE Industries
Florida Supreme Court
22 So. 3d 36 (2009)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Larson & Larson, P.A. (Larson) (plaintiff) represented TSE Industries (TSE) (defendant) in a patent-infringement claim against Franklynn Industries, Inc. (Franklynn) in federal district court. After a jury trial, the court ruled for Franklynn, holding that TSE’s patent was invalid. The jury verdict was rendered final in September 2002. Franklynn filed a post-judgment motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees against TSE. The trial court granted Franklynn’s motion, holding that TSE failed to disclose known issues regarding the validity of its patent. TSE and Franklynn settled on the amount TSE would pay Franklynn and entered a stipulation dismissing Franklynn’s fee-and-sanctions claim on October 10, 2002. On October 5, 2004, TSE sued Larson for legal malpractice, arguing that Larson’s negligence caused TSE to incur unnecessary costs (1) in the underlying patent-infringement litigation; and (2) to settle Franklynn’s fees-and-sanctions claim. Larson moved for summary judgment, arguing that TSE’s claim was time-barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because the final judgment in the patent-infringement litigation was entered in September 2002. The trial court agreed and dismissed TSE’s claim. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, holding that TSE’s claim was timely because the statute of limitations did not start to run until TSE and Franklynn settled Franklynn’s fees-and-sanctions claim and filed the associated stipulation of dismissal on October 10, 2002. Larson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Canady, J.)
Dissent (Lewis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.