To all of you who have been dying to know what happened in the world of ethics and discipline at the USPTO in the past year, I am pleased to say your wait is finally over. I have written, “2016 USPTO Disciplinary Decisions — The Year in Review.” Why was The 2016 Year in Review […]
2016 USPTO Disciplinary Decisions – The Year In Review Read More »
The USPTO Director excluded a patent attorney on consent following a disciplinary investigation arising from numerous alleged violations of the USPTO’s ethics rules. See In the Matter of Edward Etkin, Proc. No. D2016-05 (USPTO Dir. Jan. 8, 2016). The OED conducted a disciplinary investigation into the conduct of patent attorney Edward Etkin of Brooklyn, New
Five Strikes And You’re Out At The USPTO Read More »
A federal judge in New York rejected an intellectual property firm’s attempt to rely on the Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision as grounds to set aside a jury’s multi-million dollar verdict for mishandling a client’s patent application. In denying post-trial motions, U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen ruled that Virginia law firm Antonelli Terry Sout & Kraus LLP forfeited
On May 15, 2015, the USPTO Director issued an Order suspending Seattle, Washington-based patent and trademark attorney Nam D. Dao for six months for allowing multiple patent and trademark applications to go abandoned without client knowledge or consent, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and failing to cooperate with the Office of Enrollment and
USPTO Suspends Patent Attorney For Neglect, UPL And Failure To Cooperate Read More »
On August 19, 2014, the USPTO Director issued a final order suspending a patent attorney for 20-months based on three separate suspensions issued by the Supreme Court of California. The USPTO added an additional six-month period to the suspension—for a total suspension of 26 months—based on the attorney’s failure to cooperate with the OED’s disciplinary
USPTO Suspends Ethically-Challenged Patent Attorney Read More »
The USPTO recently settled a disciplinary action filed against an IP attorney by suspending him from practice before the Office for five (5) months for failing to communicate and allowing his clients’ trademark applications to become abandoned without their knowledge or consent. In re Shaffer, No. D2014-18. This disciplinary matter arose from an attorney’s representation of two
Former Client Publicly Blasts Attorney Suspended by USPTO for Failure to Communicate Read More »
The USPTO Deputy Director has accepted the resignation of a suspended practitioner who was caught prosecuting trademark matters while his USPTO bar license was suspended. The action means the attorney, Leonard Tachner, is excluded from practice before the Office in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters. In re Tachner, No. D2014-22. The saga of Mr. Tachner’s ethical troubles began ten years ago. At
USPTO Excludes Attorney For Practicing Trademark Law With Suspended License Read More »
Administrative Law Judge Alexander Fernández issued an initial decision excluding a patent attorney from practice before the USPTO because the attorney accepted fees from a client to prepare a patent application, failed to provide any legal services, and failed to return any of the client’s fee even after the client was awarded a money judgment against the
