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
On May 15, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware granted a defense motion disqualifying plaintiff’s counsel in a patent infringement action due to a former client conflict of interest. Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 14-1480-RGA (D. Del. May 15, 2015) (order here). Innovative Memory Solutions, Inc. (“IMS”)
Delaware Court Disqualifies Patent Lit. Counsel For Conflict Of Interest Read More »
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
On Friday, May 15, I was honored to be a presenter at the Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the Arizona Bar, held in beautiful Scottsdale, Arizona. Roberta Tepper of the State Bar of Arizona and I went a full two hours, providing the section members with treasured ethics CLE credits. The IP Bar in
Arizona Bar IP Section Hot for Ethics Read More »
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 »
One of the lesser publicized changes to patent law made by the America Invents Act was the amendment to Title 35, Section 32, which included two separate limitations periods for USPTO disciplinary complaints. As amended, Section 32 states a USPTO disciplinary proceeding must be commenced: not later than the earlier of either the date that
Talk about a close call. Patent attorney Howard Shipley is no doubt breathing a sigh of relief today after the Supreme Court dismissed its December 8, 2014, Order to Show Cause why Mr. Shipley should not be sanctioned. The Court issued its rare Show Cause Order after Mr. Shipley filed what his counsel characterized as an “unorthodox” petition for writ
Supreme Court Spares Patent Attorney From Discipline Read More »
Intellectual Property law firms often receive substantive documents, including original applications and amendments, with “instructions” from their client to file the paper in the USPTO, essentially as is. And just as often, IP counsel dutifully follow their clients’ orders and simply have a non-lawyer “clean up” the document so it “looks” right and, without any substantive
IP Counsel Who Blindly Follow Client “Instructions” Risk Loss Of Law License Read More »
