In re Siddharth G. Dubal, Case No. 2016-27 (USPTO Dir. July 11, 2016)

Michael E. McCabe, Jr.Other, USPTO

Summary: A patent and trademark practitioner was excluded on consent from the USPTO after he was excluded on consent from the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  Final decision here.

Disposition: Exclusion on consent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.27(b).

Related Case: In re Siddharth G. Dubal, D-59-15, 077119 (N.J. Jan. 26, 2016)

Related to USPTO Practice?  Unknown

Facts: Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.24, the OED Director opened an investigation of allegations that Mr. Dubal violated the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, namely, by being disbarred on consent from the Supreme Court of New Jersey, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(h)(1) (it is professional misconduct for a registered practitioner to be publicly disciplined on ethical or professional misconduct grounds by any duly constituted authority of a State).

Mr. Dubal’s affidavit of resignation from practice before the USPTO was accepted and he was excluded on consent. Unfortunately, neither the USPTO’s decision nor the New Jersey order provides any details of the facts leading to Mr. Dubal’s disciplinary investigation or what conduct he was engaged in that ultimately led him to resigning from the New Jersey and USPTO bars.