No. Length of experience is not the test. The knowledge must be specialized or advanced with respect to the petitioning organization's own products, processes or procedures, rather than skill acquired across an industry.
Where the knowledge came from decides it
Hypothetical example: A twenty-year career may show expertise, but L-1B does not require a U.S.-labour-market test or proof that no local hire could perform the work. The persuasive version identifies knowledge that is special relative to the industry or advanced within the organization: the group's particular drying schedules, the reasons behind each parameter, failure modes learned across prior runs, and internal grading conventions. Experience matters as the vehicle through which Tomasz acquired the knowledge, but the petition must describe and compare the knowledge rather than rely on tenure. Difficulty imparting it to another worker may be relevant evidence, but it is one factor in the totality of the circumstances, not a separate mandatory element.
The first review should name the internal process, list who else knows it and explain why ordinary industry training would not supply it. Hypothetical example: A pharmaceutical-packaging group transfers an engineer who alone configured its contamination-alert workflow. The deciding records are access logs, versions and training history, not a résumé saying she is highly skilled. If the workflow is publicly available or widely used, the company must not present general expertise as organizationally specialized knowledge.
Describe the knowledge at the level the employee actually uses it. Broad claims are weaker than a limited, verifiable explanation of a distinctive process.