At first glance, the USPTO’s most recently published disciplinary decision seems relatively bland and altogether innocuous. The case of In re Juliet M. Oberding, Proceeding No. D2016-06 (USPTO Dir. Feb. 12, 2016) involves a California-based trademark attorney who told a client on several occasions, over the course of roughly 18 months, that the client’s trademark […]
This is the second of a two-part series on reciprocal discipline in the USPTO. To read the first part click here. Once the notice requirements set forth in Sections 11.24(a) and (b) have been satisfied, Section 11.24(d) dictates the manner in which the disciplinary hearing shall proceed. In accordance with Section 11.24(d), “the USPTO Director shall
Consider the following – a patent attorney is investigated and charged by her state bar for violating the state’s code of ethics. The patent attorney believes her state law license is not particularly relevant or necessary because 100% of her practice is dedicated to patent prosecution. Therefore, to make the state bar matter “go away” with
