Extract to table

If Pinnacle approaches C&H for representation during the pendency of the OWS engagement, the Firm must evaluate whether acceptance of the Pinnacle representation would create a concurrent conflict under Rule 1

(c) Supplemental Conflict Check: If the OWS engagement evolves to encompass inter partes proceedings, patent litigation, or formal licensing negotiations involving Pinnacle, a supplemental full conflict check must be conducted at that time to ensure that no new conflicts have arisen in the interim

10 provides that, while lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1

Because the proposed engagement involves patent prosecution before the USPTO, the Firm's obligations under the USPTO's own rules of professional conduct must also be considered

The Conflicts Department shall flag any C&H new matter intake inquiry, lateral-hire clearance, or business-development contact involving Pinnacle Optics, Inc

No representation of Pinnacle shall be accepted without a supplemental conflict analysis and, if warranted, consultation with the Conflicts Committee