Takeaway: The Board will deny pro hac vice admission if the motion and accompanying declaration do not provide sufficient evidence that the attorney has experience litigating patent cases, has a familiarity with the technical subject matter at issue, and has reviewed the patent-at-issue.

In its Decision, the Board denied Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Thomas E. Lynch, III. Patent Owner asserted that there is good cause for his pro hac viceadmission at least because he (1) “is an experienced litigating attorney” whose practice has included environmental and business-related litigation, and (2) “has an established familiarity with the subject matter” of this proceeding. In opposition, Petitioner argued that Patent Owner had not provided sufficient evidence that Mr. Lynch was familiar with the technical subject matter at issue in this proceeding or has reviewed the patent-at-issue. The Board agreed that Patent Owner was too vague on Mr. Lynch’s experience in litigating patent cases and his familiarity with this particular patent-at-issue. Accordingly, the Board determined that Mr. Lynch had not established sufficient legal and technical qualifications to represent Patent Owner in the proceeding, and that the criteria for pro hac vice admission had not been satisfied. However, the Board did authorize Patent Owner to file a revised motion , if it desires.

This decision has been reversed. Please see here for full details.

Kaiser Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC, IPR2014-01002
Paper 28: Decision Denying Without Prejudice Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Thomas E. Lynch, III
Dated: February 26, 2015
Patent: 7,229,509 B2
Before and Written by: Jo-Anne M. Kokoski