Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Pro Se or not Pro Se, That is the Question

By Anthony A. Hartmann on January 14, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently denied Patent Owner’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Patent Owner in Shire Dev. LLC v. LCS Group LLC, IPR2014-00739 (Nov. 21, 2014) (Paper 9). Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(e), counsel may not withdraw without PTAB authorization. The Shire Dev. request was denied because the inventor could not proceed pro se as the patent was assigned to LCS Group, LLC, which was also designated as the real party-in-interest.

Read more

  • Posted in:
    Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    AIA Blog
  • Organization:
    Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo