Lee & Hayes PC v. Continuous Composites Inc

Track this case

Case overview

Case Number:

2:24-cv-00375

Court:

Washington Eastern

Nature of Suit:

Contract: Other

Judge:

Thomas O. Rice

Firms

Sectors & Industries:

  1. May 04, 2026

    Lee & Hayes Wins Liability Ruling In Fee Fight With Ex-Client

    An Idaho-based 3D printing firm broke a fee contract with its former legal counsel at Lee & Hayes PC, a Washington federal judge ruled Monday, rejecting the company's contention that the firm had agreed to reduce its $7.2 million contingency fee to a $3 million fixed rate.

  2. March 23, 2026

    Wash. Firm, Ex-Client Clash Over Fee Agreement Terms

    A Spokane, Washington-headquartered intellectual property firm and a former client embroiled in a $7.2 million fee dispute in Washington federal court are sparring over whether an email exchange constitutes a formal change to a fee arrangement underlying the action, as both sides fight for an early end to claims.

  3. March 10, 2026

    Law Firm, Ex-Client At Odds Over $7.2M Fee Dispute

    Law firm Lee & Hayes PC urged a Washington federal judge to reject a former client's effort to escape more than $7 million in legal fees that the firm says it's owed, claiming that Continuous Composites misled its legal team as the company negotiated a $25 million intellectual property settlement with a rival.

  4. February 17, 2026

    Flat Fee Or Contingency? Firm, Ex-Client Fight Over IP Spoils

    A 3D printing technology company has urged a Washington federal court to toss a breach of contract lawsuit brought by its former law firm, Lee & Hayes PC, arguing it agreed to a flat fee ahead of a patent settlement, while Lee & Hayes accused its former client of "underhanded misrepresentations" and denied waiving its contingency fee arrangement.

  5. November 04, 2024

    Firm Says 3D Printer Biz Owes $7.2M For Patent Trial Win

    Less than a year after obtaining a $17.3 million verdict from a Delaware federal jury in a patent case over 3D printing technology, one of the firms behind the win says its erstwhile client hasn't paid it over $7 million in legal fees.