![]() ![]() Filing Without Being Admitted to Practice Judges in the future should take this into account when dealing with them in future cases.”). ![]() Their conduct was improper and frustrated the fairness of the proceedings. July 26, 2021) (“In no way does this order vindicate attorneys James R. Judge Albright further noted that “this is not the first time that Freshub’s national counsel improperly conducted themselves before a federal district court,” citing Finjan Inc. And accusing Defendants’ counsel of engaging in this conduct, without any evidentiary support, is similarly unacceptable. Such vitriolic and unsubstantiated allegations are not only shocking, but also offensive to this Court. However, a bitter losing party’s difficulty in explaining its loss is never a proper basis for counsel to invoke baseless allegations of racism and anti-Semitism to request a new trial. I just simply can’t explain it because the evidence was so overwhelming.” Dkt. Andre’s statements during the October 19 hearing: “I cannot explain the. Freshub’s motion is apparently the result of its dissatisfaction with the verdict and counsel’s difficulty in making sense of the unfavorable outcome, which is apparent from Mr. The Court finds that Freshub’s inflammatory allegations are nothing but baseless attacks on the integrity of this Court and the reputation of Defendants’ counsel. Without any evidentiary support, these serious allegations are particularly disturbing. Freshub’s counsel failed to articulate any coherent argument as to how Defendants’ counsel engaged in any racist or anti-Semitic conduct at trial. Throughout the Octohearing, Freshub’s counsel could not point to any concrete evidence-or indeed, any evidence at all-that Defendants made arguments that intentionally played into Freshub’s Israeli ties or any Freshub witnesses’ race, heritage, or religion. The Court did not turn a blind eye to any racist or anti-Semitic conduct, because indeed there was none. But the attorney admitted at the hearing on the motion that the plaintiff “did not make a single objection on the basis that Defendants were pitting a community against a foreign company during either the trial or the closing argument.” The plaintiff then filed a motion for new trial, arguing that “Defendants blew this Jewish stereotype ‘dog whistle’ at every opportunity to unfairly bias the jury” because plaintiff was an Israeli company. In Freshub, the attorney represented the plaintiff in that patent infringement suit where the jury found no infringement. The sanction was to complete 30 hours of Continuing Legal Education in legal ethics within six months, which the attorney completed. More concerning, however, was the sanction imposed by Judge Albright of the Western District of Texas in Freshub, Inc. His declaration explained that the denial had been due to “an unintentional procedural error” on his part. The PTAB was not bothered by the fact that the attorney previously had been denied pro hac vice admission in another PTAB proceeding. 9,917,856) at the district court and the Federal Circuit. He also was involved in litigation pertaining to the subject patent (U.S. The attorney who sought pro hac vice admission is a partner at his firm and an experienced litigation attorney with over twenty-five years practicing law including litigating patent cases in district courts. Centripetal Networks, Inc., IPR2022-00182, Paper 56 (PTAB Feb. The PTAB recently denied pro hac vice admission to an attorney in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. If such attestation cannot be made, then “a full explanation of the circumstances” should be provided. 15, 2013), which includes attesting that that applying attorney has had no application for admission to practice denied by any court or administrative body and no sanctions or contempt citations imposed by any court or administrative body. ![]() Parallel Iron, LLC, IPR2013-00639, Paper 7 (PTAB Oct. The content for a motion for pro hac vice admission is set forth in Unified Patents, Inc. Good cause would include being an experienced litigating attorney with an established familiarity with the subject matter at issue in the proceeding before the PTAB. Back-up counsel, however, need not be a registered patent attorney, but that attorney must file a motion to appear pro hac vice (that is, to appear as counsel for this one case only) upon a showing of good cause, subject to the condition that lead counsel be a registered practitioner. Lead counsel must be a registered patent attorney. If so, then the party must designate a lead counsel and at least one back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel. ![]() In a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), a party may be represented by counsel. PTAB Pro Hac Vice JamesJuo | February 8, 2023 ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |