IP Law Daily, PATENT—1st Cir.: Tech company’s malpractice and fiduciary-duty claims against patent law firm revived on appeal, (Feb 5, 2026)

By Saurabh Kashyap, B.A., M.A., LL.B., LL.M.

The district court erred in resolving accrual, tolling, and attorney-client relationship issues as matters of law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has reversed in part and vacated in part a Massachusetts district court’s summary judgment that had dismissed a technology company’s legal malpractice and fiduciary duty claims against its longtime patent counsel. The appellate court held that the district court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims were time-barred under Massachusetts’ three-year statute of limitations and that no attorney-client relationship existed between the parties. The First Circuit ruled that disputes over claim accrual, equitable tolling, and the existence and scope of an attorney-client relationship presented factual questions for a jury. It therefore reinstated the legal malpractice claim, vacated the timeliness rulings on related claims, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (Blueradios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C., No. 24-1942 (1st Cir. Feb. 2, 2026)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellant, BlueRadios, Inc., is a Colorado-based technology company specializing in wireless communications, including Bluetooth-enabled devices. During the mid-2000s, BlueRadios collaborated with Kopin Corporation, a Massachusetts-based microdisplay technology company, to develop a wireless headset called “Golden-i.”The defendants/appellees are Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C., and several of its attorneys. The firm is a Massachusetts-based intellectual property boutique that represented Kopin for decades in patent prosecution matters.

BlueRadios and Kopin entered into a written agreement governing ownership and prosecution of intellectual property developed during the project. Under that agreement, the parties would jointly own certain intellectual property, while Kopin assumed responsibility for filing and prosecuting patent applications. The relationship between BlueRadios and Kopin deteriorated in 2009, after which communications ceased.

The dispute arose from a series of patent applications filed between 2008 and 2012 relating to Golden-i technology—including the ’462 application, the ’147 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application, the ’646 application, and the ’090 application.

BlueRadios alleged that during patent prosecution, the law firm altered inventorship and assignee designations to Kopin’s benefit and to BlueRadios’ detriment. According to BlueRadios, the firm removed BlueRadios engineers as named inventors, listed Kopin as the sole assignee, abandoned at least one application without notice, and filed a terminal disclaimer that effectively extinguished a joint application by asserting Kopin’s exclusive ownership.

BlueRadios contended that these actions deprived it of its rights of inventorship, ownership, and assignment, as guaranteed by contract and patent law. It further alleged that the firm failed to disclose conflicts of interest, including a partner’s financial ties to Kopin.

In March 2021, BlueRadios sued the firm and individual attorneys in the District of Massachusetts, asserting claims for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, and unfair or deceptive business practices under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied BlueRadios’ partial motion. The court held that all claims were barred by the statute of limitations, reasoning that BlueRadios was on constructive notice of its alleged injuries as early as 2008 and on actual notice by November 2014 at the latest. The court further held that neither the continuing-representation doctrine nor fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period. Finally, “for completeness,” the district court ruled that no attorney-client relationship existed between BlueRadios and the firm. BlueRadios appealed.

Statute of limitations. The First Circuit began its analysis with the statute of limitations. Citing Williams v. Ely, 668 N.E.2d 799 (Mass. 1996), the court noted that under Massachusetts law, legal malpractice claims are subject to a three-year limitations period and accrue when the client knows or reasonably should know that he or she has sustained appreciable harm as a result of the lawyer’s conduct.

The appellate court emphasized that Massachusetts courts treat accrual under the discovery rule as a fact-intensive inquiry ordinarily reserved for the jury. Citing Taygeta Corp. v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 763 N.E.2d 1053 (Mass. 2002), the court reiterated that summary judgment is appropriate only when the relevant facts are undisputed.

Applying that framework, the First Circuit rejected the district court’s conclusion that BlueRadios was on notice in 2008–2009 merely because it received copies of patent applications or because those applications were publicly accessible through the USPTO. The court observed that inventorship, assignment, and terminal disclaimer issues involve complex patent doctrines that non-lawyer engineers might not reasonably understand. It cautioned that adopting the district court’s approach would effectively require clients to audit their patent counsel’s work to preserve malpractice claims, undermining the trust inherent in the attorney-client relationship.

Public availability of patent filings. Further, the First Circuit rejected the district court’s reliance on the public availability of patent applications as a basis for accrual. Distinguishing Wise v. Hubbard, 769 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1985), the court noted that patent applications do not confer enforceable property rights in the same manner as issued patents. It further distinguished Geo. Knight & Co. v. Watson Wyatt & Co., 170 F.3d 210 (1st Cir. 1999), which involved non-legal professionals and materially different circumstances. Whether BlueRadios reasonably should have discovered the alleged misconduct through publicly available prosecution histories, the court held, presented a classic jury question.

The 2014 investigation and legal fees. The district court had also concluded that accrual occurred no later than November 2014, when BlueRadios retained outside patent counsel to investigate its patent portfolio. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that the record supported competing inferences.

The appellate court explained that incurring legal fees does not, in itself, constitute appreciable harm for accrual purposes. Citing Frankston v. Denniston, 907 N.E.2d 244 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009), the court reasoned that BlueRadios could have engaged outside counsel simply to assess its portfolio, not because it suspected malpractice. Moreover, the outside attorney had not communicated conclusions establishing wrongdoing before the critical limitations date.

Potential accrual. The First Circuit held that a reasonable jury could find that BlueRadios first discovered actionable harm in 2017, during discovery in separate litigation against Kopin. According to BlueRadios, that discovery revealed internal communications between Kopin and the firm suggesting coordinated conduct, undisclosed conflicts, and intentional concealment. Because the parties had entered into a tolling agreement preserving claims that were timely as of December 5, 2017, the appellate court concluded that the legal malpractice claim could proceed.

Attorney-client relationship. The First Circuit next addressed the district court’s alternative holding that no attorney-client relationship existed. Applying Massachusetts law, the court emphasized that such a relationship may arise by implication when a party seeks and receives legal advice under circumstances manifesting mutual consent.

The court identified evidence supporting BlueRadios’ position, including the firm’s review of the BlueRadios-Kopin agreement, the opening of billing files referencing BlueRadios, powers of attorney executed by BlueRadios employees, direct communications between the firm and BlueRadios, and the disclosure of confidential technical information. Whether the firm represented only Kopin or also undertook duties to BlueRadios, the court held, was a factual dispute inappropriate for summary judgment.

Equitable tolling. Because the district court’s rejection of tolling doctrines rested on its erroneous conclusions regarding accrual and the attorney-client relationship, the First Circuit vacated those rulings as well. The court directed the district court to reconsider, on remand, the applicability of the continuing-representation and fraudulent-concealment doctrines, consistent with its discovery-rule analysis.

Disposition. Thus, the First Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling that the legal malpractice claim was time-barred as a matter of law, vacated the untimeliness determinations as to the remaining claims, and remanded for further proceedings. The court did not decide the merits of BlueRadios’ claims but held that they must be resolved by a factfinder rather than disposed of at summary judgment.

The Case is No. 24-194.

Judge: Thompson, O.

Attorneys: J. Carl Cecere (Cecere PC) for Blueradios, Inc. Carolyn J. Fairless (Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP) for Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, PC.

Companies: Blueradios, Inc.; Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, PC

Cases: Patent TechnologyInternet MaineNews MassachusettsNews NewHampshireNews PuertoRicoNews RhodeIslandNews