The fallout from the Niro, Haller & Niro law firm’s doomed litigation on behalf of Intellect Wireless continues. For patent litigator David J. Mahalek, the most junior member of the Niro litigation team, the disciplinary shoe of the USPTO did not just drop–it kicked him in the teeth with an 18-month suspension of his law […]
On February 27, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed a decision by the USPTO Director excluding a registered patent agent from practice before the USPTO because the agent practiced trademark law. Factual Background Bang-er Shia became a registered patent agent in 2005; she has never been admitted to the
District Court Affirms PTO’s Disbarment Of Patent Agent Who Practiced TM Law Read More »
On January 25, 2017, the Federal Circuit ruled a district court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based upon the losing party’s conduct with respect to responding to one particular issue in discovery. In National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine,
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 »
Attorney Rodger Moore enjoys a good bottle of wine. Evidently, his budget does not. After scamming his local grocery store for years by switching prices on expensive wines for a cheaper variety, Mr. Moore is now paying a hefty price–with his law license. Mr. Moore became licensed to practice law in 2001. His ethics problems
A Bottle of White? A Bottle of Red? Perhaps a One-Year Suspension Instead Read More »
Some IP practitioners are unaware of the ethical rules regulating the practice known as “fee-splitting.” In this context, “fee-splitting” refers to the situation where a first USPTO practitioner divides a portion of a client’s fee with a second practitioner who is from a different firm as the first. According to 37 C.F.R. Section 11.105(e), a
Ethical Fee-Splitting for IP Practitioners & New ABA Guidance Read More »
On August 5, 2016, the USPTO Director issued a Final Order reversing an administrative law judge’s initial decision, which had suspended a practitioner for 18 months. The Final Order held the OED Director violated USPTO precedent and mandatory rules regarding reciprocal discipline—37 C.F.R. § 11.24. The Final Order is significant because it not only confirms the
USPTO Director Reverses ALJ In Disciplinary Case, Rules In Favor Of Attorney Read More »
“As long as the world is turning and spinning, we’re gonna be dizzy and we’re gonna make mistakes” — Mel Brooks In bar disciplinary proceedings, the word “mistake” is often used either to explain, describe, or defend against, a charge of alleged unethical behavior. But is it unethical for an attorney to make an “honest
