My prior post described the pro hac vice admission dispute between SAP and Versata Development Group in PTAB matter CBM2012-00001. The PTAB wasted no time and issued an order denying the motion for pro hac vice admission of Versata’s litigation trial counsel on November 6, 2012. The PTAB essentially found that Versata failed to demonstrate “good cause” for why its litigation counsel should be admitted pro hac vice in the PTAB proceeding.
Versata, as the party moving for pro hac vice admission, bears the burden of showing there is good cause for the Board to recognize counsel pro hac vice during the proceeding. Based upon the facts presented, the Board concludes that Versata has failed to meet its burden.
It is:
Ordered that Versata’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Scott L. Cole is denied.
The Board also referenced documents from the earlier litigation that indicated some sort of noted violations of a protective order in that litigation, and noted that Versata did not identify or explain the noted violations in its motion for admission:
Versata’s motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Cole and Mr. Cole’s declaration in support thereof are premised in part on Mr. Cole’s position as lead counsel in the related Versata v. SAP litigation. Versata’s motion and Mr. Cole’s declaration do not address or mention the district court’s finding of a pattern of protective order violations in the related litigation for which Mr. Cole was lead counsel.
As of this posting, no other entries were found in the record after this order, so this might be the final word on this dispute.
