Washington, D.C. intellectual property lawyer Kevin Laurence shares his thoughts about objections and motions to exclude. He remarks that while it’s important to make timely objections to preserve the right to file a motion to exclude, doing so requires careful judgment. In his experience, less seasoned practitioners often overuse objections, not realizing that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is generally reluctant to exclude evidence.

He emphasizes that an objection can sometimes backfire. By raising one, an attorney may give the opposing side an opportunity to submit additional or stronger evidence to cure the issue. Given the low likelihood of success and the potential to inadvertently strengthen the other side’s case, he advises a cautious and strategic approach—reserving objections for truly significant issues.

He also notes that the timing of motions to exclude presents practical challenges. The deadlines for the motion, opposition, and reply are highly compressed and occur right before oral argument. Because such motions rarely influence the final outcome, they can become more of a distraction than a benefit.

For that reason, he ensures that the attorney responsible for leading the oral argument stays focused on the key substantive issues, not evidentiary skirmishes. His team typically assigns a separate attorney to handle evidentiary matters, allowing the lead advocate to prepare for argument without distraction. This division of responsibility, he explains, keeps the team focused and ensures that their efforts remain aligned with the issues most likely to affect the result.