In Re BEN WILLIAMS v. Laurain, No. 3:16-cv-777 W.D. La. . Mr. Williams also moves to stay district court…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re BEN WILLIAMS,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-124
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in No.
3:16-cv-00777-TAD-JPM, Judge Terry A. Doughty.
______________________
ON PETITION AND ON MOTION
______________________
Before T ARANTO, WALLACH , and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit
Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Ben Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus direct-
ing the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Louisiana to vacate its order denying his motion for
leave to appear pro hac vice in Luv n’ care Ltd. v. Laurain,
No. 3:16-cv-777 (W.D. La.). Mr. Williams also moves to
stay district court proceedings pending resolution of his pe-
tition. We deny the petition and the motion.
Following remand from this court, see Luv n’ care, Ltd.
v. Laurain, 98 F.4th 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the district court
Case: 25-124 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE WILLIAMS 2
concluded that Eazy-PZ, LLC’s asserted patent (U.S. Pa-
tent No. 9,462,903) was unenforceable based on inequitable
conduct. Of relevance here, the court found Mr. Williams
committed misconduct during prosecution of the ’903 pa-
tent.1 On March 9, 2025, Mr. Williams sought leave to ap-
pear pro hac vice to represent Eazy-PZ, LLC. Luv n’ care,
Ltd. and Nourie E. Hakim opposed based on the district
court’s finding of inequitable conduct. Without a hearing
on the motion, the district court on March 21, 2025, denied
Mr. Williams’s motion based on that finding. Mr. Williams
then filed this petition and motion seeking a stay.2
Mr. Williams here primarily contends that the district
court erred in denying his motion for leave to appear pro
hac vice without a hearing and an adequate opportunity to
defend himself against the allegations. In support, he cites
In re Evans, 524 F.2d 1004, 1008 (5th Cir. 1975), which
states: “If a District Court has evidence of behavior that it
believes justifies denying an attorney admission pro hac
vice, it must set a hearing date and give the attorney ade-
quate notice of all incidents of alleged misbehav-
ior . . . . The hearing must be on the record and present the
attorney with adequate opportunity to defend himself and
his professional reputation.” (emphasis added). But it does
not appear that Mr. Williams has yet presented that case
and related argument to the district court or that doing so
would be futile.
1 Mr. Williams moved to intervene in the case to de-
fend against the allegations of inequitable conduct related
to his activities, which the district court denied on Novem-
ber 14, 2024. Mr. Williams did not appeal.
2 We have jurisdiction over Mr. Williams’s petition
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1651(a). See In re Princo
Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Case: 25-124 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE WILLIAMS 3
Under the circumstances, we deem it the better course
to deny Mr. Williams’s mandamus petition without preju-
dice to him first moving the district court for reconsidera-
tion of its order denying leave to appear pro hac vice. See
In re BigCommerce, Inc., 890 F.3d 978, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“[T]he availability of seeking reconsideration ordinarily
weighs heavily against granting a writ” of mandamus un-
less such a request “would have been futile.”). Any new
petition for mandamus that may be filed from the district
court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on its
own merits.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
(2) The motion for a stay pending resolution of the pe-
tition is denied as moot.
April 4, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-124 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2025

-- 3 of 3 --