USPTO Disciplinary Decision search engine.

Why this Page?
The disciplinary decisions of the USPTO are posted in the Office of Enrollment and Discipline’s (OED’s) so-called “FOIA Reading Room.” The only readily-discernible information one can glean from the “Reading Room” is the name of the practitioner involved, the proceeding number, and the decision date. If a reader wants to know more about any of the decisions posted in the Reading Room, or to categorize decisions, then they must manually open each PDF file and read the entire decision. This can be a frustrating and time-consuming endeavor.

I created this Page as a tool for electronically conducting a filtered search of the raw data (PDF files) contained in the OED Reading Room. In addition, I created this Page to give readers an easy-to-read digest and summary of the Reading Room-posted decisions without having to go through the trouble of mining this information from the raw PDF source documents.

How it Works
The way this Page works is simple. When you get to the end of this introduction section, you will see a filters’ box. USPTO disciplinary decisions can be searched using up to three different filtering mechanisms: (1) the type of conduct that led to discipline (e.g., neglect, misrepresentations, etc.); (2) the procedural mechanism utilized in reaching the decision (e.g. a trial, a settlement, reciprocal discipline, etc.); and (3) the punishment imposed (e.g., a reprimand, a suspension of short, medium, or long duration, exclusion, etc.). So, for example, if you want to see all of the USPTO disciplinary decisions that resulted in a suspension of less than six months and were the result of a settlement agreement, simply check the corresponding boxes in the “procedures” and “punishment” filters to make your selections. Or if you want to see all decisions that involved practitioner misrepresentations, simply check that box in the “category” filter. The results of any filtered search will be displayed in reverse chronological order. If no filter is used to narrow the scope of a search, then all of the USPTO disciplinary decisions that have to date been digested will be listed in reverse chronological order.

Work in Progress
One major caveat: to date, we have digested and implemented the filtering mechanism for all USPTO disciplinary decisions published since January 1, 2016. This Page is a living, breathing tool. We intend regularly to update our digests to reach back to decisions from 2015, 2014, and earlier. Please bear with me; there are a lot of decisions! Eventually, though, we hope to have all of the USPTO’s disciplinary decisions digested and categorized. In the meantime, I hope you find this new search engine useful in your practice.

  • Subject:

  • Procedure

  • Punishment

  • Reset Search Settings

Found 39 Results
Page 2 of 3

In re Ian P. Coyle, Proc. No. D2016-16 (USPTO Dir. July 27, 2016)


Disposition: ALJ’s initial decision recommending entry of default judgment and practitioner’s exclusion from practice before the USPTO became final Agency decision as a matter of law.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney was charged with multiple counts of ethical misconduct arising from the abandonment of a client’s patent application and failure to cooperate with the OED’s ethics investigation. After … Read More

Tags: ,

July 27, 2016


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


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 … Read More

Tags: ,

July 11, 2016


In re Tamara Renee Good, D2016-19 (USPTO Dir. July 11, 2016)


Disposition: Exclusion from practice before the USPTO, which was unopposed by the practitioner, and which was predicated upon practitioner’s disbarment from the Court of Appeals of Maryland.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney was reciprocally excluded from practice before the USPTO predicated upon her being disbarred by the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The state court disbarment arose from … Read More

Tags: ,


In re Gouri G. Nair, D2016-07 (USPTO Dir. June 30, 2016)


Disposition: Two (2)-year suspension, stayed, with thirty (30) days of actual suspension, and a two-year period of probation, unopposed by the practitioner, predicated on identical discipline imposed by Supreme Court of California.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney received a two (2)-year stayed suspension, with thirty (30) days of actual suspension from practice before the USPTO and the requirement … Read More

Tags: ,

June 30, 2016


In re Clifford G. Frayne, Proc. No. D2016-09 (USPTO Dir. June 17, 2016)


Disposition: ALJ’s initial decision recommending entry of default judgment and practitioner’s exclusion from practice before the USPTO became final Agency decision as a matter of law.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent practitioner with over thirty-eight (38) years of experience was charged with ethical misconduct arising from his representation of a patent prosecution client as well as his representation of … Read More

Tags: ,

June 17, 2016


In re Everitt George Beers, Proc. No. D2016-18 (USPTO Dir. June 10, 2016)


Disposition: Four (4)-month suspension from practice before the USPTO.  Final decision here. Summary: A registered patent attorney was suspended from practice before the USPTO for violation of numerous USPTO Disciplinary rules arising from his representation of a client in various trademark matters. The attorney’s conduct involved willful misconduct, including collecting unearned legal fees and USPTO filing fees paid by a … Read More

Tags: ,

June 10, 2016


In re Ralph T. Rader, D2015-24 (USPTO Dir. May 18, 2016)


Disposition: Reciprocal transfer to disability inactive status predicated on transfer to disability inactive status in Michigan. The practitioner requested that the USPTO not transfer him to disability inactive status. The USPTO Director denied the practitioner’s request and transferred the practitioner to disability inactive status.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney suffered a stroke which impacted his cognitive abilities. He … Read More

Tags: ,

May 18, 2016


In re Walter P. Tambolini, D2016-17 (USPTO Dir. May 9, 2016)


Disposition: Two (2)-year suspension, which was unopposed by the practitioner, and which was predicated upon identical discipline imposed by the Nevada Supreme Court.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney received a two (2)-year suspension from practice before the USPTO as reciprocal discipline arising from discipline imposed in Nevada, in which he was found to have engaged in unauthorized practice … Read More

Tags: ,

May 9, 2016


In re Joseph Stecewycz, Proc. No. D2014-15 (USPTO Dir. May 5, 2016)


Disposition: ALJ’s initial decision recommending patent practitioner’s two-year suspension was affirmed by the USPTO Director.  The practitioner’s subsequent request for reconsideration of the USPTO Director’s final decision was denied.  Final decision here, and Order denying reconsideration request here. Summary: The OED Director charged a patent practitioner for violating four ethics rules in connection with his representation of a client.  The patent attorney was accused of … Read More

Tags: ,

May 5, 2016


In re Russell W. Warnock, Proc. No. D2016-08 (USPTO Dir. Apr. 22, 2016)


Disposition: ALJ’s initial decision recommending entry of default judgment and practitioner’s exclusion from practice before the USPTO became final Agency decision as a matter of law.  Final decision here. Summary: An IP attorney who had been licensed since 1988 and had a history of professional discipline was charged with multiple counts of ethical misconduct arising from the abandonment of multiple … Read More

Tags: ,

April 22, 2016


In re Jerry A. Schulman, Proc. No. D2016-02 (USPTO Dir. Apr. 13, 2016)


Disposition: Two (2)-year suspension from practice before the USPTO.  Final decision here. Summary: Over the course of ten (10) years, an IP practitioner allowed numerous patent and trademark applications to go unintentionally abandoned for multiple clients without their knowledge or consent, failed to communicate with his clients, and misrepresented the status of two (2) clients’ patent applications. The USPTO Director … Read More

Tags: ,

April 13, 2016


In re Christopher L. Persaud, Proc. No. D2014-34 (USPTO Dir. Mar. 31, 2016)


Disposition: Exclusion from practice before the USPTO resulting from the practitioner’s disbarment from the Supreme Court of California. The USPTO Director rejected practitioner’s challenge to reciprocal discipline. Summary: A patent attorney with a prior disciplinary history was investigated by California disciplinary authorities for possible ethics violations. To resolve the matter, the attorney consented to disbarment. The USPTO Director thereafter instituted … Read More

Tags: ,

March 31, 2016


In re Carl J. Schwedler, Proc. No. D2015-38 (USPTO Dir. Mar. 21, 2016)


Disposition: ALJ’s initial decision recommending entry of default judgment and practitioner’s exclusion from practice before the USPTO became final Agency decision as a matter of law.  Final decision here. Summary: A patent attorney was charged with multiple counts of ethical misconduct arising from the abandonment of a client’s patent application and failure to cooperate with the OED’s investigation. After failing … Read More

Tags: ,

March 21, 2016


In re Rodger W. Moore, Proc. No. D2016-11 (USPTO Dir. Mar. 16, 2016)


Disposition: One (1)-year suspension from practice before the USPTO and one (1)-year period of probation following reinstatement, which was unopposed by the practitioner, and which was predicated on identical discipline imposed by the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Final decision here. Summary: In a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, a trademark practitioner who stole wine on multiple occasions and lied about his conduct … Read More

Tags: , ,

March 16, 2016


In re Roy A. Ekstrand, Proc. No. D2016-13 (USPTO Dir. Mar. 14, 2016)


Disposition: Public reprimand and six (6)-month period of probation.  Final decision here. Procedure: Settlement pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.26 Related to USPTO Practice? Yes Misconduct: Unintentional financial misconduct. Summary: A patent practitioner who submitted eight (8) dishonored non-trust account check payments to the USPTO on behalf of a number of clients entered into a settlement agreement pursuant to which he … Read More

Tags: , ,

March 14, 2016


Page 2 of 3