1st Circuit Reinstates Legal Malpractice Suit Against Patent Firm

Appellate court finds implied attorney-client relationship between BlueRadios and Hamilton Brook, Smith & Reynolds

Published on Feb. 20, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a legal malpractice suit against a Boston law firm, Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, that handled patent applications related to a product the plaintiff, BlueRadios, was jointly developing with the firm's client, Kopin Corp. The appeals court found an implied attorney-client relationship between BlueRadios and the law firm, reversing a lower court's dismissal of the case.

Why it matters

This case highlights the complexities that can arise when a law firm represents multiple parties in a joint venture and the importance of clearly defining the attorney-client relationship. The 1st Circuit's ruling serves as a reminder to transactional and trial lawyers to approach such situations with thoughtful communication and defined boundaries to avoid potential malpractice claims.

The details

BlueRadios, a Colorado company that develops wireless technology, partnered with Massachusetts-based Kopin Corp. to develop the Golden-i headset. The companies agreed to jointly own any intellectual property developed for the project, but Kopin insisted on using its own law firm, Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, to prosecute the patents. Over several years, the law firm amended patent claims in a way that resulted in only Kopin employees being credited as inventors and only Kopin being assigned the patents, which BlueRadios allegedly discovered in 2014. BlueRadios then brought a legal malpractice claim against Hamilton Brook in 2021, but a lower court judge ruled there was no attorney-client relationship between the parties. The 1st Circuit reversed that decision, finding an implied attorney-client relationship as a matter of law.

  • In 2007, BlueRadios and Kopin contracted to co-develop the Golden-i product.
  • Between 2008 and 2012, the law firm amended multiple patent claims in a way that resulted in only Kopin employees being credited as inventors and only Kopin being assigned the patents.
  • In 2014, a contract lawyer hired by BlueRadios inventoried the company's IP and discovered that BlueRadios was not listed on patents related to Golden-i.
  • In August 2016, BlueRadios sued Kopin in federal court in Colorado for breach of contract.
  • On December 5, 2017, BlueRadios and the defendant law firm entered a tolling agreement.
  • BlueRadios brought its malpractice action against the law firm on March 22, 2021.

The players

BlueRadios, Inc.

A Colorado company that develops wireless technology and was a joint developer of the Golden-i product with Kopin Corp.

Kopin Corp.

A Massachusetts-based technology company that was a joint developer of the Golden-i product with BlueRadios.

Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.

A Boston law firm that was hired by Kopin to handle patent prosecution related to the Golden-i product, which BlueRadios claims resulted in only Kopin being assigned the patents.

Mark Kramer

The CEO of BlueRadios.

Wilfred Tucker

The chief technology officer of BlueRadios.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“HBSR attempts to cast BlueRadios as an 'incidental' beneficiary 'from HBSR's provision of legal services to Kopin.' But we think that claim is baffling considering the record before us: the contractual provisions giving BlueRadios joint rights to the IP, the communications between BlueRadios and HBSR, and the applications filed jointly for Kopin and BlueRadios.”

— Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, 1st Circuit Judge

“BlueRadios was far from the putative client whose case hinged merely on the 'expectation' that they 'would be an eventual financial beneficiary' of the lawyer's actions.”

— Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson, 1st Circuit Judge

What’s next

The case will now return to the district court for further proceedings, including a determination by a jury on when BlueRadios' malpractice claim accrued.

The takeaway

This case highlights the importance for lawyers to carefully navigate attorney-client relationships, especially in joint venture scenarios, to avoid potential malpractice claims down the line. Clear communication, defined boundaries, and thoughtful consideration of all parties' interests are crucial when representing multiple clients.