Emil Ali

Emil J. Ali is a partner at McCabe & Ali, LLP where he focuses his practice on helping lawyers understand their obligations under state and federal law. As a registered patent attorney, a significant focus of his practice involves advising lawyers and law firms on all aspects of the intersection of IP and ethics matters. Emil’s work includes counseling clients on lateral transitions, malpractice avoidance, expert opinion and testimony, and respondent’s defense work before various bars and courts. Contact Emil J. Ali at emil@mccabeali.com, or Tel: (310) 596-1234.

Data breach

The USPTO’s Breach of Trust: Practitioner Response and Reporting Requirements

USPTO ( United States patent and trademark office) /

The USPTO has once again disclosed confidential information of applicants—this time for patent applicants.  Previously, the USPTO has disclosed confidential information of trademark applicants, including a breach of home addresses.  However, many practitioners have wondered—what are their obligations with respect to the USPTO’s actions. Duty to Communicate with Clients When the USPTO breaches its duty

The USPTO’s Breach of Trust: Practitioner Response and Reporting Requirements Read More »

Pro Se Representation Before the USPTO OED: A Risky Gamble

USPTO Ethics Investigation /

The USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) handles investigations and disciplinary proceedings against attorneys and other practitioners who engage in misconduct before the USPTO. Navigating these complex proceedings without legal representation can be a daunting and perilous task.  We have covered previously various best practices regarding what to do if you find yourself with

Pro Se Representation Before the USPTO OED: A Risky Gamble Read More »

Understanding 37 CFR 11.801: A Lesson in Not Fully Cooperating with OED

Patent Ethics /

37 CFR 11.801 is a regulation that imposes a duty on practitioners to cooperate with the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED).  The regulation is divided into two key provisions that apply to applicants for registration, and those under disciplinary/reinstatement investigation: False Statements: The regulation first proscribes making false statements of material fact.  This is

Understanding 37 CFR 11.801: A Lesson in Not Fully Cooperating with OED Read More »

artificial intelligence

AI and Patent Law: Can Machines Uphold the Duty of Disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56?

Artificial Intelligence /

The world of intellectual property law is buzzing with questions and commentary regarding the practicality and ethics of using artificial intelligence to aid the practice of law before the USPTO.  As I addressed in a prior blog post, some of the concerns are much ado about nothing. However, one question previously left unanswered was the

AI and Patent Law: Can Machines Uphold the Duty of Disclosure under 37 CFR 1.56? Read More »

AI

An IP Lawyer’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence, IP Ethics /

In the past year, I have seen an increase in questions related to artificial intelligence.  Specifically, patent and trademark lawyers have asked whether it is permissible for those lawyers engaged in practice before the USPTO to use Generative AI.  While I have and continue to present on this topic multiple times, including (here), (here), and

An IP Lawyer’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence Read More »

OED letterhead

Received a Request for Information and Evidence from OED – Here is How to Respond

Discipline, IP Ethics, Office of Enrollment and Discipline, Patent Ethics /

First Contact The envelope comes by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested and stamped as “Personal and Confidential.” Inside is a letter from the USPTO captioned “REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 11.22(f).” The letter goes on to read that the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) received information regarding you, and that

Received a Request for Information and Evidence from OED – Here is How to Respond Read More »

Federal Circuit Issues Opinion Reversing USPTO’s Improper Invalidation of Trademark

Trademark ethics /

On October 18, 2023, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in GREAT CONCEPTS, LLC, v. CHUTTER, INC., reversing the decision of the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.  The Court analyzed very crucial point in the progeny of In re Bose— whether alleged fraud on the USPTO that could invalidate a trademark application also applies

Federal Circuit Issues Opinion Reversing USPTO’s Improper Invalidation of Trademark Read More »

Scroll to Top