“Challenger in VLSI-Intel Patent Dispute Ordered to ID its Owners” —

• “VLSI Technology LLC is closer to identifying who filed an administrative challenge to a patent that Intel Corp. was found to have infringed by a Texas jury almost four years ago.”
• “A federal judge on Thursday ordered Patent Quality Assurance LLC to comply with heightened disclosure rules in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia where it’s defending a VLSI abuse-of-process lawsuit. Judge M. Hannah Lauck stated PQA violated the rule, rejecting the company’s argument that it was only required to identify “entities which pose potentially disqualifying financial conflicts.”

The order notes:

• “This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC’s (‘VLSI’) Motion to Compel Defendant Patent Quality Assurance, LLC to Comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1 (the ‘Motion’).”
• “PQA filed a Financial Interest Disclosure Statement. (ECF No. 2.) PQA left the first two sections of the Disclosure Statement blank and filled out the third portion as follows:
  • “Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1 of the Eastern District of Virginia and to enable Judges and Magistrate Judges to evaluate possible disqualifications or recusal, the undersigned counsel for Patent Quality Assurance, LLC in the above-captioned action, certifies that there are no parents, trusts, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates of said party that have issued shares or debt securities to the public.”
• “On April 9, 2024, VLSI filed a Motion to Compel Defendant PQA to Comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1.”
• “Local Rule 7.1 (A) concerns disclosure statements and provides:
  • ‘(A) Nongovernmental Corporations: A nongovernmental corporation, partnership, trust, or other similar entity that is a party to, or that appears in, an action or proceeding in this Court shall: (1) file a statement that (a)identifies all its parent, subsidiary, or affiliate entities (corporate otherwise) that have issued stock or debt securities to the public and also identifies any publicly held entity… b. Identifies all parties in the partnerships, general or limited, or owners or members of non-publicly traded entities such as LLCs or other closely held entities.'”
• “In short, an LLC “that is a party to, or that appears in, an action or proceeding in this Court” and fails to identify its ‘owners or members’ has violated the Court’s Local Rules. E.D. Va. Local Civil R. 7.1(A).”
• “PQA is a South Dakota limited liability company (‘LLC’). (ECF No. 14-1, at 2.) PQA acknowledges that it did not disclose its individual members in its Local Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement. (ECF No. 22, at 13.) However, PQA argues that its Local Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement is complete because Local Rule 7.1 only requires the disclosure of parties that pose potentially disqualifying financial conflicts. (ECF No. 22, at 15) (emphasis in original).”
• “This is incorrect. The plain language of the rule requires parties to ‘file a statement that… identifies all parties in the partnesrships, general or limited, or owners or members of non-publicly traded entities such as LLCs or other closely held entities.’ E.D. Va. Local Civil R. 7.1(A)”
• “Local Rule 7.1 does not distinguish between ‘individual’ and ‘entity’ members of an LLC. The purpose of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 is to require parties to provide information to courts that will enable judges to make disqualification decisions in accordance with Canon 3C(1)(c) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, 2002 Advisory Committee Notes. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 specifically ‘does not prohibit local rules that require disclosures in addition to those required by Rule 7.1.’ Id. The Eastern District of Virginia’s corresponding Local Rule does just that, requiring additional disclosures to those contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1. Specifically, parties must identify ‘all parties in the partnerships, general or limited, or owners or members of non-publicly traded entities such as LLCs or other closely held entities.’ E.D. Va. Local R. 7.1 (emphasis added).”
• “Local Rule 7.1’s requirement that parties disclose individual members of an LLC advances the Rule’s purpose of ferreting out conflicts of interest because individuals may enter into financial arrangements with judges. Further, judges may have personal relationships with individuals necessitating disqualification. PQA’s assertion that the possibility of such a relationship is ‘vanishingly slim’ (ECF No. 22, at 18) insufficiently satisfies the Court’s burden to ensure that no grounds for recusal exist, financial or otherwise. See Uieky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 548 (1994).”
• “Thus, the Court will grant VLSI’s Motion and require PQA to file a Disclosure Statement identifying its members as required by Local Rule 7.1.”

“Lab Owner’s Atty DQ’d After Repping Doctor In Fraud Inquiry” —

• “New Jersey prosecutors succeeded in disqualifying the lawyer for a lab owner accused of paying kickbacks to a New York City doctor in a $20.7 million fraud scheme because the attorney previously represented the doctor.”
• “On Friday [11/6], U.S. District Judge Susan D. Wigenton in New Jersey ordered that Abe George of the Law Offices of Abe George PC must step away from his defense of laboratory owner Richard Abrazi against a criminal charge that he took part in an illegal Medicare billing scheme with Queens, New York-based physician Dr. Alexander Baldonado.”
• “George previously represented Baldonado amid the government’s investigation into the alleged healthcare fraud scheme.”
• “Abrazi and Baldonado are facing separate but related charges over their respective roles in an alleged plot to defraud the government by conducting about $20.7 million worth of unnecessary medical tests. The Justice Department says the tests were ordered by Baldonado and conducted by Abrazi, with the doctor accused of accepting kickbacks for his patient referrals.”
• “Court records show Baldonado was first indicted in May 2021 and charged with eight counts in a superseding indictment in February 2024. Abrazi was indicted separately in June 2024 and charged with one count.”
• “In July, prosecutors filed a letter to Judge Wigenton alerting her to the potential conflict and requesting she remove George from the suit.”
• “In their letter, the government warned the court of the danger of an ‘actual or potential conflict of interest’ arising under the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “At the time, prosecutors noted that both Baldonado and Abrazi signed waivers to permit George to represent Abrazi in the criminal proceeding, and entered each of the waivers into the record as exhibits.”
• “In Baldonado’s waiver, George informed him that his case and Abrazi’s were ‘substantially related’ and therefore it was ‘possible that Mr. Abrazi’s interest might be adverse to yours, which could create an actual conflict of interest.’ For instance, the waiver stated, either of the defendants could choose to cooperate with the government and testify against the other.”
• “George also said in Baldonado’s waiver that he did not believe he had ‘any privileged confidential information from you that could impact your case or help Mr. Abrazi gain any advantage.'”
• “In Abrazi’s waiver, George likewise recognized the substantial overlap between the laboratory owner’s case and Baldonado’s, and acknowledged that the two defendants could find themselves at odds, including the potential that questions could arise about the thoroughness of George’s advocacy in light of his prior relationship with the doctor.”
• “Despite these waivers, prosecutors told Judge Wigenton at the time, Third Circuit precedent has established that district courts may still disqualify counsel at their discretion.”
• “On Friday, Judge Wigenton found the government was right to raise the issue of actual or potential conflicts arising from George’s appearance on behalf of Abrazi, determining that such conflicts cannot be waived and therefore the attorney must be disqualified.”