Patent attorney Raymond P. Niro and three other lawyers are on the hook to opposing counsel for what could be millions of dollars in fees as a result of a client’s lies.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge William T. Hart found that Niro and the other lawyers with Niro, Haller & Niro Ltd. pursued a patent-infringement lawsuit on behalf of Intellect Wireless Inc. even though they knew the company and inventor Daniel Henderson had made false statements.

Henderson made multiple false declarations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2007 concerning technology that enables wireless devices to receive caller identification, video messages and caller pictures, Hart found.

He found that Intellect Wireless’ lawyers — Niro, Paul K. Vickrey, David J. Mahalek and Paul C. Gibbons — filed infringement suits in 2008 and 2009 based on those false declarations.

In the suit before him, Hart found, the lawyers continued to push Intellect Wireless’ infringement claim despite the “critical knowledge” that Henderson had made false declarations.

Hart acknowledged that the U.S. Patent Act authorizes an award of attorney fees and costs to the prevailing party only in exceptional cases.

This case, Hart held, is exceptional.

Under that circumstance, he wrote, the four lawyers — Hart referred to them collectively as “Niro” — are just as responsible as their client for the costs incurred by opposing counsel.

“The false presentation of Henderson’s activity and knowledge justifies making Niro jointly and severally liable with [Intellect Wireless] for attorney fees and costs,” Hart wrote.

He ordered attorneys for Intellect Wireless and the defendants in the suit, HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc., to try to determine the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded.

A status hearing is set for Jan. 22.

Niro, Vickrey and Mahalek are partners at the Niro firm. Gibbons, a former partner, is now a partner at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP in Boston.

The four lawyers filed declarations in the litigation before Hart contending they were never informed that Henderson had made false statements to the PTO. They also contended they never made any misrepresentations in the litigation.

Intellect Wireless initially opposed HTC’s request for attorney fees and costs, but it ultimately conceded the case was an exceptional one under the Patent Act.

Hart issued his opinion last week in Intellect Wireless Inc. v. HTC Corp., et al., No. 09 C 2945.

The lead attorney for Intellect Wireless is Shelly B. Kulwin of Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin LLP.

“Intellect Wireless was required to concede, after recent Supreme Court rulings, that a fee award was mandated,” Kulwin said. “And given that, I think the judge gave the company a considered ruling.”

The Niro lawyers are represented by Robert P. Cummins, who recently moved The Cummins Law Firm P.C. from Chicago to Portland, Maine. He could not be reached for comment.

Niro also couldn’t be reached for comment.

The lead attorney for HTC is Stephen Korniczky of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in San Diego.

“It’s been a long haul to reach this point,” he said. “We’re very pleased that HTC will be able to recover its attorney fees from the Niro firm as well as Intellect Wireless.”

Other attorneys representing HTC include Bradley C. Graveline of Sheppard, Mullin and Paul J. Korniczky and Robert T. Wittmann, both of Leydig, Voit & Mayer Ltd.