U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART I— UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Chapter CHAPTER 3— PRACTICE BEFORE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

35 U.S.C. § 32

Suspension or exclusion from practice

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Director may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who does not comply with the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D), or who shall, by word, circular, letter, or advertising, with intent to defraud in any manner, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or other person having immediate or prospective business before the Office. The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion shall be duly recorded. The Director shall have the discretion to designate any attorney who is an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct the hearing required by this section. A proceeding under this section shall be commenced not later than the earlier of either the date that is 10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding occurred, or 1 year after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding is made known to an officer or employee of the Office as prescribed in the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under such conditions and upon such proceedings as it by its rules determines, may review the action of the Director upon the petition of the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1927–2026 · leading case: Michael I. Kroll v. Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Chief Couns. for the New York State Grievance Comm. for the Tenth Jud. Dist., 242 F.3d 1359 (10th Cir. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael I. Kroll v. Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Chief Couns. for the New York State Grievance Comm. for the Tenth Jud. Dist., 242 F.3d 1359 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 11× “§ 2 (b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C. § 32 , which grant the PTO the authority to regulate the practice of patent law before the PTO, preempt the authority of the Grievance Committee to discipline him for conduct arising out of his patent prosecution practice.”
Richard M. Franchi v. Harry F. Manbeck, Jr., Assistant Sec'y of Com. & Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 972 F.2d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 8× “The court concluded that [a]s 35 U.S.C. § 32 [ 3 ] provides that the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alone has jurisdiction to undertake such review, this court necessarily lacks jurisdiction to do so.”
Edmund M. Jaskiewicz v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Comm'r, Patents & Trademarks, 802 F.2d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1986). · cites it 8× “By Decision and Order dated October 1, 1984, Jaskiewicz was suspended, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 32 (1982), 1 for misconduct in the representation of parties before the PTO.”
Chaganti v. Lee, 187 F. Supp. 3d 682 (E.D. Va. 2016). · cites it 9× “Here, petitioner seeks judicial review of the PTO’s imposition of reciprocal discipline pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 32 . As the administrative record has been submitted and the parties have fully briefed the matter, it is now ripe for disposition.”
William J. Carter v. United States Dep't of Com., 830 F.2d 388 (D.C. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Given this inconsistency, we remand for a more complete explanation of the rationale for the Exemption 6 withholding of entire charges and related documents under paragraphs 12 and 48. 19 Conclusion Even Carter does not dispute the indisputable proposition that disclosure of…”
Bender v. Dudas, 490 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “35 U.S.C. § 32 ; 37 C.F.R. § 10.157 . Based on the administrative record, Bender and the government filed cross-motions for summary judgment.”
Cornish v. Dudas, 715 F. Supp. 2d 56 (D.D.C. 2010). · cites it 2× “]” 35 U.S.C. § 32 . Generally, for a court to hear “claims seeking judicial review of an agency action under the APA, it must determine that the action is final.”
Loving v. Internal Revenue Serv., 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “, 35 U.S.C. § 32 (discussing “practice before the Patent and Trademark Office”); 26 U.”
Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 605 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 35 U.S.C. § 32 . Here, the determination of John Doe I's compliance with the MPEP and the CFR is a necessary element of Carter's malpractice cause of action because the CFR and the MPEP establish John Doe I's expected fiduciary duties to his clients.”
Marinangeli v. Lehman, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 4× “35 U.S.C. § 32 . Judicial review of the Commissioner’s final decision imposing sanctions is available in this Court.”
Stephen Wyden v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION An action for review of a decision of the Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office disciplining an attorney pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 32 arises under an Act of Congress relating to patents.”
Edmund M. Jaskiewicz v. Gerald J. Mossinghoff, Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 822 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “Jaskiewicz then filed a petition in the District Court for the District of Columbia under 35 U.S.C. § 32 . The District Court *1057 concluded that substantial evidence supported the decision of the PTO, granted summary judgment in favor of the appellee and denied appellant’s…”
Show all 107 citing cases →
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.