Lemkin v. Hahn, Loeser & Parks

Craig Miller and Mark Watson (defendants) were attorneys that previously worked for Oldham & Oldham, LPA (O & O), a firm specializing in intellectual property. Miller filed a provisional patent for a pet feeder that included eight drawings that Miller and Watkins said were created by Steven Tsengas. Jack Lemkin (plaintiff) claimed he created the eight drawings and that he told Miller and O & O that they were his drawings. O & O did not correct this. O & O later sold its assets and transferred its clients and files to another law firm, Hahn, Loeser & Parks (HLP) (defendant). Lemkin then filed an action against Miller, Watkins, and HLP in an Ohio state court, alleging in part that HLP was a successor in interest to O & O. The court granted summary judgment on that claim, holding that HLP was not a successor in interest. The court then dismissed the claims against Miller and Watkins for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, because the claims arose out of patent law under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. Lemkin then filed an action in this court against Miller and Watkins as well as a direct liability claim against HLP. HLP filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, arguing that Lemkin’s claims against it are barred by res judicata. The court then ordered HLP to show cause as to why its motion should not be denied on the basis that the state court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the issue of successor liability in a case involving patent law.