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. § 11.49

Burden of proof

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

In a disciplinary proceeding, the OED Director shall have the burden of proving the violation by clear and convincing evidence and a respondent shall have the burden of proving any affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Piccone v. Pato (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Piccone v. Pato (Fed. Cir. 2019). “37 C.F.R. § 11.49 . The PTO determined that he failed to meet that burden, and determined that the complaint was brought within the limitations period.”
Welytok (E.D. Va. 2025). “Although administrative in nature, the USPTO’s disciplinary proceedings bear the hallmarks of traditional litigation in Article III courts: The OED Director bears the “burden of proving the violation by clear and convincing evidence,” 37 C.F.R. § 11.49 ; the practitioner may…”
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.