Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ed Meers]

I recall somewhere that in order to file a patent infringement complaint you either had to be an attorney or had to be the whole owner (assignee) of the patent to file pro se.

I cannot seem to find any statute stating this explicitly and was wondering if anyone knew of such a statute's location.

[JSonnabend]

Regardless of whether you file pro se or through an attorney, a plaintiff in a patent infringement action must have sufficient interest in the patent to bring suit (i.e., the plaintiff must have standing).  A named inventor of a patent who has not assigned or exclusively licensed his rights in the patent should have sufficient standing to bring suit absent some unusual circumstances.

In many jurisdictions, a company cannot act pro-se.

- Jeff

[helensu]

Dear Jeff,

As you mentioned, "In many jurisdictions, a company cannot act pro-se."

But FRCP provided that a party can be unreprensented. Does this only apply to natural person not a corporation?

Anyway, how about the law in California? Can a corporation in a patent litigation, either as P (in DJ) or D (infringemet suit) act pro-se by its in-house counsel?

Lastly, in ITC proceeding, can a corporation (respondent) act through it in-house counsel instead of outside one (law firm?)

[davidlaw69]

As a general rule, only individuals can appear pro se.  Entities must be represented by counsel.  In patent cases, it is particularly important to have counsel.

In house counsel can certainly act as counsel assuming that such in-house counsel has been admitted to the federal court (which usually requires membership in the bar of the relevant state).

The plaintiff must be either the patentee or one to whom the patent has been assigned, or can somehow otherwise claim an equitable interest.

David L. Finger, www.delawgroup.com

[JSonnabend]

The plaintiff must be either the patentee or . . . [someone who] can somehow otherwise claim an equitable interest.

Well, someone who can show sufficient interest for standing purposes.  The interest need not lie in equity, I believe.

[helensu]

In house counsel can certainly act as counsel assuming that such in-house counsel has been admitted to the federal court (which usually requires membership in the bar of the relevant state).

Let's say the in-house counsel is admitted to practice in X state, while the patent litigation is in a district court sitting in Y state. Can the in-house counsel appear in Y state by filing "pro hac vice"?

Only a law firm, not an individual should be named as a corp's litigation representative. Right? If so, how can in-house counsel represent its company without retaining an outside firm in a patent litigation.

Sorry, I am a bit confused now. >_<

[davidlaw69]

The in-house counsel cannot appear pro hac vice by himself (or herself).  He (or she) must be associated with a lawyer who is a member of the bar of the court in which the litigation is pendng (the "local counsel").  The rules of each court set forth what the obligations of local counsel are -- usually they must review and sign all papers filed with the court (the signature of the out-of-state lawyer, even though in charge of the case, is irrelevant), and must attend all court hearings with the pro hac attorney, unless special permission is granted by the court.  In short, it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to avoid the expense of paying for the local counsel.

You might, however, try to get the case transferred to your location.

David L. Finger, www.delawgroup.com