Ethics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at the USPTO April/May 2012
What follows are the decisions from April and May 2012. In this time period in 2012 at the OED the Office found themselves dealing with a patent attorney that accepted referrals from an invention...
View ArticleUSPTO Adopts New Ethics Rules Based on ABA Model Rules
The Federal Register Notice explains that currently there are approximately 41,000 registered patent practitioners, with at least 75% of the roster of patent practitioners being attorneys who are...
View Article--- Article Removed ---
*** *** *** RSSing Note: Article removed by member request. *** ***
View ArticleEthics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at PTO – Feb. 2013
Jaeger did not file a response to the complaint, despite being granted two extensions of time to do so. He did, however, send two brief fax messages to OED, in one pointing out that he was an honorably...
View ArticleEthics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at PTO – March/April 2013
Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), sets the standards for imposing reciprocal discipline on the basis of a State’s disciplinary adjudication. Under Selling, State disciplinary action creates a...
View ArticleEthics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at PTO – April 2013
One of the things specifically alleged as demonstrating lack of control over his practice was his antiquated docketing system. Until 2005 Tachner used a "white board" system that was updated monthly...
View ArticleEthics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at PTO – May & June 2013
Time and time again in reciprocal discipline proceedings we see the USPTO handing down identical discipline to what was handed out at the State level. This is no doubt because State discipline creates...
View ArticleEthics & OED: Practitioner Discipline at PTO July/August 2013
These three proceedings, like every other reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, demonstrate the overwhelming importance of obtaining the best resolution possible when the State ethics authorities come...
View ArticleOED Discipline for False, Misleading Statements in Brief to CAFC
The USPTO charged that Hicks violated 37 C.F.R. 10.20 et seq.[1] Ultimately, Hicks acknowledged that he violated 37 C.F.R. 10.23(b)(5), which prohibited “conduct that is prejudicial to the...
View ArticleEnter the Sandman: USPTO Unhittable in Reciprocal Discipline Proceedings
Mariano Rivera knows something about perfection. The New York Yankees now-retired pitcher is regarded by many experts as the greatest closer in the history of major league baseball. For those who are...
View ArticleUSPTO to Update Patent Registration Exam April 2013
The Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has announced that the patent bar examination, which is sometimes called the patent registration...
View ArticleTermination of an OED Disciplinary Proceeding: How A SOL Defense May Be...
The Hearing Order concluded that the parties raised sufficient issues of material fact to warrant the ready-to-go Hearing to determine when respondent’s alleged misconduct was actually “made known” to...
View Article
