C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 11—REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Subpart C—Investigations and Disciplinary Proceedings; Jurisdiction, Sanctions, Investigations, and Proceedings

37 C.F.R. § 11.20

Disciplinary sanctions; Transfer to disability inactive status

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Types of discipline. The USPTO Director, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, and where grounds for discipline exist, may impose on a practitioner the following types of discipline:

(1) Exclusion from practice before the Office;

(2) Suspension from practice before the Office for an appropriate period of time;

(3) Reprimand or censure; or

(4) Probation. Probation may be imposed in lieu of or in addition to any other disciplinary sanction. The conditions of probation shall be stated in the order imposing probation. Violation of any condition of probation shall be cause for imposition of the disciplinary sanction. Imposition of the disciplinary sanction predicated upon violation of probation shall occur only after a notice to show cause why the disciplinary sanction should not be imposed is resolved adversely to the practitioner.

(b) Conditions imposed with discipline. When imposing discipline, the USPTO Director may condition reinstatement upon the practitioner making restitution, successfully completing a professional responsibility course or examination, or any other condition deemed appropriate under the circumstances.

(c) Transfer to disability inactive status. As set forth in § 11.29, the USPTO Director, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, may transfer a practitioner to disability inactive status where grounds exist to believe the practitioner has been transferred to disability inactive status in another jurisdiction, has been judicially declared incompetent, has been judicially ordered to be involuntarily committed after a hearing on the grounds of incompetency or disability, or has been placed by court order under guardianship or conservatorship.

[73 FR 47689, Aug. 14, 2008, as amended at 78 FR 20200, Apr. 3, 2013; 86 FR 28457, May 26, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2017–2021 · leading case: In re Disciplinary Action Against Stewart, 899 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Disciplinary Action Against Stewart, 899 N.W.2d 476 (Minn. 2017). · cites it 3× “See Rule 12(d), RLPR; 37 C.F.R. § 11.20 (a)(1) (2016). Minnesota does not have any sanction called “exclusion from practice.”
Piccone v. Pato (Fed. Cir. 2019). “§ 32 ; 37 C.F.R. § 11.20 . The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs dis- trict court review of disciplinary action taken by the PTO.”
Reaction Washer v. IDEPA (D. Utah 2021). “The first element of the Ockey test that prevents enforcement of a contract on public policy grounds is not met here because there is no Utah state law declaring a release agreement of this sort as unlawful.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.