f43660fd-ca64-4927-9525-123696be9af7.pdf (2020)

Original PDF Document

---

Download Official Record (brantley-3363-notice-of-reciprocal-discipline.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE 10/25/2023

AT NASHVILLE

IN RE: LARRY WAYNE BRANTLEY, BPR No. 034021
An Attorney Licensed to Practice Law in Tennessee
(Huntsville, Alabama)

________________________________________

No. M2023-01490-SC-BAR-BP
BOPR No. 2023-3362-5-AW-25
______________________________________

NOTICE OF RECIPROCAL DISCIPLINE

Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 9, Section 25.2, provides that upon receiving
information that discipline was imposed in another jurisdiction, notice shall issue
directing the attorney to inform the Court why the imposition of identical discipline in
Tennessee would be unwarranted and the reasons therefor.

You are, therefore, ORDERED to inform this Court, within thirty (30) days of
your receipt of this Notice, why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed in Tennessee
predicated upon the grounds set forth in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4. In the absence of a
response demonstrating the grounds set forth in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 25.4, the Supreme
Court of Tennessee will impose discipline with identical terms and conditions based upon
the attached certified copy of the Final Order entered by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office Before the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Final
Office, attached as Exhibit A.

PERCURIAM
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEIVIARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRAMMARK OFFICE

In the Matter of )
)
Larry W. Brantley, ) Proceeding No, 1)2020-17
)
Respondent )
)

FINAL ORDER

The Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline ("OED Director") for the United

States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") and Larry W. Brantley

("Respondent") have submitted a Proposed Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") to the Under

Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and

Trademark Office ("USPTO Director") for approval.

The Agreement, which resolves all disciplinary action by the USPTO arising from the

stipulated facts set forth below, is hereby approved. This Final Order sets forth the parties'

stipulated facts, legal conclusions, and sanctions.

Jurisdiction

1, At all times relevant, Respondent of Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, has been a

registered patent practitioner (Registration No. 46,052) and an attorney licensed in the state of

Alabama, Respondent is registered to practice be-fore the USPTO in patent matters and is subject

to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, which are set forth at 37 C.F,R. §§ 11,101 through

11,901,

2. The USPTO Director has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32, and 37 CFR. §§ 11,19, 11,20, and 11,26.

1
Joint Stipulated Facts

Background Ruarding Respondent's Employment

3. On September 26, 1997, Respondent was admitted to practice law in the State of

Alabama.

4. The USPTO registered Respondent as a patent attorney on March 24, 2000,

assigning him Registration No. 46,052.

5. On February 28, 2011, Respondent became a Federal employee subject to Federal

conflictOf interest laws, rules, and regulations when he was hired by the United States Arrny

Aviation and Missile Command, in Huntsville, Alabama, as a patent attorney.

6. On May 18, 2011, Command Counsel of the Army approved, with important and

unambiguous restrictions, Respondent's request to praetice law outside of his employment with

the Army.

7. The May 18, 2011 authorization restricted Respondent from certain outside

practice, including, among others: (a) no representation of clients before the United
States Patent
and Trademark Office or any other department or agency of the U.S. Government; and (b) no

outside employment involving patent law. This authorization had no expiration date.

8. From at least Ju1y 19, 2011, Respondent's was able to send faxes from his home

and did so.

9. On April 30, 2013, a subsequent Command Counsel of the Army revoked all prior

approvals for outside legal work, including Respondent's May 18, 2011 authorization.

10. On July 16, 2013, subsequent Command Counsel of the Army approved, with

important and unambiguous restrictions, Respondent's request to practice law outside of his

employment with the Army.

2
11. Respondent participated in the drafting of his July 16, 2013 authorization,

12. ' The July 16, 2013 authorization contained the following restrictions, among

others, including an express prohibition on representing clients before the Office in patent or

trademark matters:

The proposed outside practice will involve providing legal advice
and services to clients relating to various areas of the law, including
providing general advice regarding intellectual property matters to
clients{,] providing limited assistance to clients seeking and
maintaining patents, trademarks, and copyrights without
representing the clients before the United States Patent and
Trademark Offiee or the United States Copyright Office; assisting
clients in responding to allegations of patent, trademark, and
copyright infringement; and representing clients in patent,
trademark, and copyright infringement litigation, provided that the
United States Government is not a party to the litigation, with the
following limitations :

1) No representation of clients before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office or any other department or agency of the U.S.
Government;
2) No outside employment involving patent proseeution or any
other activities that require interaction with the USPTOH

13. On April 30, 2014, the July '16, 2013 authorization expired.

14. On May 1, 2014, Command Counsel of the Army approved, with important and

unambiguous restrictions Respondent's request to practice law outside of his employment with the

Army.

15, The May 1, 2014 authorization contained the same restrictions as the July 16, 2013

authorization, inoluding the express prohibition against representing clients befot'e the Office in

patent or trademark matters.

16. On December 31, 2014, Respondent left Federal employment and returned to

practicing law in the private seetor,

3
17. From approximately December 31, 2014, to April 16, 2017, Respondent worked as

counsel and then as a partner at a law firm in the private sector,

18. On April 17, 2017, Respondent was re-employed in the Federal service when he

returned to Federal employment as a patent attorney for the division of Army Material

Command.

19. ln this Federal position, Respondent served as senior Patent Attorney,

20. From June 6, 2014 until June 30, 2017, Respondent and/or his law firm, Brantley

Intellectual Property Law, maintained and occupied a private law office that was located in close

proximity to the Army base on which he worked,

21. On April 17, 2017, Respondent re-enterecl Federal service when he began

working for the Army as a patent attorney for the division of Army Material Commtmd,

22, On June 30, 2017, Cominand Counsel of the Army approved Respondent's

request to practice law outside of his employment with the Army.

23, The June 30, 2017 authorization oontained the following restrictions, among

others, including an express prohibition against representing clients before the Office in patent or

trademark matters:

The proposed outside practice will involve providing legal advice
and services to clients relating to various areas of the law, including:
providing general advice regarding intellectual property matters to
clients; providing assistance to clients seeking and maintaining
patents, trademarks, and copyrights without representing the clients
before the United States Patent and Trademark Office or the
United States Copyright Office; assisting clients in responding to
allegations (by parties other than the United States) of patent,
trademark, 'and copyright infringement or trade secret
misappropriation; assisting clients in licensing patents or other
intelleotual property; asserting or initiating infringement actions;
and teaching intellectual property law eourses at local colleges or
universities subject to the following limitations:

4
1) No representation of clients before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) or any other department or agency
of the U.S. Government;
2) No outside employment involving activities that require
interaction with the USPTO[,1

24. The June 30, 2017 authorization expired on June 1, 2018, No further authorizations

were granted.

Respondent's Specific Legal Services for Private Clients While He Was a Federal Employee

25. As set forth below, while Respondent was employed as a Federal employee, he

provided the followiiig paid representational services to private clients that constitute practice

before the Office, even though Respondent did not become a practitioner of record for the private

clients;

a. Respondent was retained to perform a patent search and provided a
patentability opinion relating to Client A's invention and did so.

b. Respondent assisted Client B with the drafting and filing of Client B's
patent application, which Respondent sent to the Office via fax, Respondent also
assisted Client B with drafting a response to an Office Action, which Respondent
filed via fax. Respondent did not sign the patent application data sheet or the response
to the Office Action, and was not practitioner of record.

c. Respondent assisted Client C with the drafting and filing of a Revocation
of a Power of Attorney and an Amendment with respect to Client C's patent
application. Respondent faxed Client C's Revocation of a Power of Attorney and the
Amendment to tlie Office. Respondent did not sign Client C's patent application data
sheet and was iiot practitioner of record,

d. Respondent assisted with the drafting ancl filing of Client D's patent
application. Respondent filed responses to two Notices of Incomplete Reply with
respect to Client D's patent application. Respondent did not sign the filings and was
not practitioner of record,

e. Respondent represented Client E before the U,S Copyright Office when he
prepared and filed a copyright registration application on behalf of Client E.
Respondent did not sign the copyright registration.

f, Respondent represented Client F before the USPTO when lie assisted with
the drafting and filing of Client F's provisional patent application. Respondent also

5
paid the filing fees for Client F's provisional patent application. Respondent did not
sign the provisional patent application and was not practitioner of record.

g. Prior to Respondent's Federal employment, while Respondent practiced
law in the private sector, he represented Client G and two of Client G's related
companies. Respondent's practitioner-client relationship witli Client G continued
during Respondent's Federal employment. White Respondent was a Federal
employee, Respondent assisted Client G and his cornpanies with the drafting and
filing of several patent applications and other filings related to those applications, and
with the drafting, filing and prosecuting of a trademark application. While
Respondent was a Federal employee, Respondent sent filings to the USPTO on behalf
of Client G. Although the filings were made with Client G's signature, Respondent
prepared the filings. Respondent sent the filings via facsimile from Respondent's
number, and at least one of those filings bore the fax header, "Brantley Intellectual
Property." Respondent did not sign the filings made on behalf of Client G during
Respondent's Federal employment and was not practitioner of record.

h. Respondent represented Client H before the USPTO by assisting her with
the drafting and filing of a patent application. Respondent did not sign the application
or become practitioner of record.

i. Client I hired Respondent to assist with prosecution of a trademark
application, Respondent represented Client I before the USPTO by assisting with the
drafting and filing of Client I's trademark application, which was filed in August
2013.

j. Respondent provided legal services for Client J, including a patent search
and patentability opinion for Client J's invention, pursuant to an executed
engagement agreement.

Respondent represented Client K before the USPTO by assisting him with
the drafting and filing of a provisional patent application, and by assisting him with
the drafting and filing of a non-provisional patent application. Respondent did not
sign these filings and was not practitioner of record,

1. Respondent represented Client L before the USPTO by assisting him with
the drafting and filing of a patent application that was filed with the USPTO.
Respondent did not sign this filing and was not practitioner of record.

m. Respondent represented Client M and Client M's company before the
USPTO by assisting with the drafting and filing of a design patent application, a
status update that Respondent faxed to the Office, and a Response to
Abandonment/Termination Letter that Respondent faxed to the Office. Respondent
did not sign these filings and was not practitioner of record,

n, Respondent represented Client N before the USPTO by assisting with the
drafting and filing of a trademark application and related responses to Office actions.
Respondent did not sign these filings and was not practitioner of record,
6
o. Respondent sent Client 0 an executed engagement agreement agreeing to
assist in filing a provisional patent application for Client O's invention. Respondent
represented Client 0 before the USPTO by assisting him with the drafting and filing
of a provisional patent application that was filed, Respondent did not sign this filing
and was not practitioner of record,

Client P engaged Respondent to prosecute a patent application,
Respondent represented Client P before the USPTO by drafting and filing a patent
applioation that was filed, Respondent did not sign this filing and was not praetitioner
of record.

q. Client Q engaged Respondent to draft and file a trademark applieation.
Respondent represented Client Q before the USPTO by assisting her with the drafting
and filing a trademark application that was filed. Respondent did not sign this filing
and was not practitioner of record.

F. Respondent represented Client R before the USPTO by assisting Client R
with the drafting in preparation of filing and filing of a Combined Deelaration of Use
and/or Excusable Nonuse/Applieation for Renewal of Registration of a Mark under
Sections 8 and 9. Although Respondent did not sign this filing, Respondent was listed
in the correspondence seetion,

s. Respondent was attorney of record in Client S's trademark application
from its filing date in May 2016 through its abandonment in October 2017.
Respondent did not talce steps to withdraw ftom the representation after he was re-
employed by the Army in April 2017, Because Respondent remained attorney of
record, he represented the applicant in the application while a Federal employee,

t. Respondent was attorney of record in Client T's trademark application
from its filing date in February 2016 through August 10, 2017. Respondent did not
take steps to withdraw from the representation after he was re-employed by tlie Army
in April 2017, Because Respondent remained attorney of record, lie represented the
applicant in the application while a Federal einployee,

Respondent was attorney of record hi Client U's trademark application
from its filing date in March 2016 through its abandonment in October 2017,
Respondent did not talce steps to withdraw from the representation after he was re-
employed by the Army in April 2017, Because 'Respondent remained attorney of
record, he represented the applicant in the application while a Federal employee,

v, Although Respondent returned as a patent attorney for the division of
Army Material Command on April 17, 2017, time entry records for Respondent at the
private law firm show billing entries for 1,1 hours of "filing provisional patent
application" on April 25, 2017, 0.3 hours for "sending email to [REDACTED] re:
Certificate of Registration for [REDACTED] mark and maintenance of filing
deadlines" on April 26, 2017, and 0,1 hours for "Premium time entry" on April 27,
2017.

7
Army Discipline Imposed Against Respondent

26, Effective Monday May 6, 2019, Respondent was indefinitely suspended from the

performance of legal duties as a Department of the Army attorney within the Office of the

Command Counsel, U.S. Army Command,

27, On September 4, 2020, the Department of the Army found that Respondent had

engaged in one charge of "prohibited outside employment," but did not sustain charges of a

second charge of "prohibited outside employment" or a charge of "conduct unbecoming a

Federal employee." The Department of the Army suspended Respondent from his Federal

employment position for 14 days.

28. On September 8, 2020, Respondent and the Department of the Army entered into

an Abeyance Agreement, which modified Respondent's discipline to hold the 14-day suspension

in abeyance pending Respondent's completion of a two-year probationary period and prevented

the discipline from becoming part of Respondent's employment file if he successfully completed

the probationary period. Respondent has successfully completed the probationary period

imposed and remains employed by the Department of the Army,

Applicable Le al Standards
29, Federal regulations set forth a broad definition of practice before the Office in

patent matters, "Practice before the Office in patent matters includes, but is not limited to,

preparing and prosecuting any patent application, consulting with or giving advice to a client in

contemplation of filing a patent application or other document with the Office, drafting the

specification or claims of a patent application; drafting an amendment or reply to a

communication from the Office that may require written argument to establish the patentability

of a claimed invention; drafting a reply to a communication from the Office regarding a patent

application; and drafting a communication for a public use, interference, reexamination

8
proceeding, petition, appeal to or any other proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,

or other proceeding." 37 C.F,R, § 11,5(b)(1).

30. Federal regulations set forth a broad definition of praetice before the Office in

trademark matters. "Practice before the Office in tradeinark matters includes, but is not limited

to, consulting with or giving advice to a client in contemplation of filing a trademark application

or other document with the Office; preparing and prosecuting an application for trademark

registration; preparing an amendment which may require written argument to establish the

registrability of the mark; and conducting an opposition, cancellation, or concurrent use

proceeding; or conducting an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board," 37 C.F.R. §

11.5(b)(2).

31. Providing a preliminary patentability opinion and a conducting a patent search are

activities that constitute practice before the Office as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 11.5.

32. Drafting in preparation of filing patent applications, trademark applications,

responses to Office actions, and other documents to be filed with the USPTO is practice before

the Office as defined by 37 C.F,R. § 11.5.

33, A registered practitioner who assists another by providing consultation in

anticipation of filing and in preparing patent or trademark documents that are later filed with the

USPTO engages in practice before the USPTO even though the registered practitioner does not,

himself or herself, sign or file docurnents with the USPTO, See In re Achterhof, Proceeding No.

D2017-24 (USPTO Dec, 11, 2018); In re Achterho,f, Proceeding No, D2017-24 (USPTO Nov, •

18, 2019).

34. While he was a federal employee, R.espondent engaged in so-called

"ghostwriting" of documents; in other words, he drafted doeuments contemplated to be filed with

9
c, conduct which constitutes a violation of 37 C,F,R, § 10,23(a) or
(b), which includes knowing pi'actice by a Government employee
contrary to applicable Federal conflict of interest laws, or
regulations of the Department, agency or commission employing
said individual by violating the Army's regulations and outside
practice of law authorizations and Fedei'al ethics law, including 5
C,F,R, § 2635.802, by consulting in anticipation of filing, drafting
in preparation for filing, filing, not withdrawing as attorney of
record in trademark matters pending before the Office, and by
i'eceiving compensation for these actions on behalf of othei's befoi'e
the Office while employed by the Department of the Army, in
violation of 37 C,F,R, § 10.23(a) and (b) via 37 C.F.R. §
10.23(c)(20) of the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility;
and

d. failing to withdraw from employment if the practitioner knows or
it is obvious that the practitionees contined employment will
result in violation of a Disciplinary Rule by not withdrawing from
representing others in trademark matters pending before the Office
wliile employed by tlie Department of the Army in violation of
5 C,F.R, § 2635,802, in violation of 37 C,F,R, § 10,40(b) of the
USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility,

44. By reason of the conduct described above, Respondent has engaged in the

following misconduct on or after May 3, 2013:

a, as a practitioner who is a current Federal government employee, by
engaging in conduct which is contrary to applicable Federal ethics
law, including conflict of interest regulations of the department,
agency oi' commission formerly oi' cui'i'ently employing him, by
consulting in anticipation of filing, preparing and prosecuting
patent and trademark applications befoi'e the USPTO, not tiinely
withdrawing as attorney of record in numerous trademark rnatters
pending before the Office, and receiving compensation for
representing others before the Office while employed by the
Department of the Army, in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 11.111 of the
USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct;

b, failing to withdraw froin the representation of a client when the
representation resulted in a violation of the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct or other law by not withdrawing from
representing others in patent and trademark matters pending before
the Office while employed by the Department of the Army, in
violation of 37 C.F.R. § 11.116(a)(1) of the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct; and

12
c, engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by
engaging in conduct which is contrary to applieable Federal ethics
law, including conflict of interest regulations of the department,
agency or commission formerly or eurrently ernploying him, by
consulting in anticipation of filing, preparing and prosecuting
patent and trademark applications before the USPTO, not timely
withdrawing as attorney of record in numerous trademark matters
pending before the Office, and receiving compensation for
representing others before the Office while employed by the
Department of the Army, in violation of 37 C,F,R, § 11,804(d) of
the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.

Agreed Upon Sanction

45, Respondent has freely and voluntarily agreed, and it is hereby ORDERED, that:

a. Respondent shall be and is hereby publicly reprimanded;

b, Respondent shall serve a thirty-six (36) month probationary period that
commences on the date of this Final Order;

c, As a condition of probation, within each of the three 12-month portions of
the 36-month probationary period, Respondent shall, (1) at his own cost
and expense, take and receive six (6) hours of continuing legal education
courses in the specific area of professional ethics, and (2) within 30 days
of taking and receiving the course work comprising any part of the six-
hour requirement, submit a declaration with accompanying documentary
proof to the OED Director evidencing that Respondent has completed the
course work comprising any part of the six-hour requirement;

d. As a condition of probation, within each of the three 12-month portions of
the 36-month probationary period, Respondent shall (1) devote no less that
forty (40) hours of his personal time providing (i) unpaid, pro bono legal
services not involving intellectual property law or practice before any
federal agency, and/or (ii) other volunteer services (1.e., not related to the
practice of law) for the benefit of underserved or marginalized populations
within his community, and (2) submit a declaration with accompanying
documentary proof to the OED Director evidencing that Respondent has
satisfied his annual pro bono/volunteer service requirement;

e. As a condition of probation, Respondent shall pay in full $9,227.18 in
allowable costs, as described in 37 C.F.R. § 11.60(d)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii),
that were incurred by the USPTO in connection with the institution,
prosecution, and dismissal of the formal disciplinary proceeding against
Respondent. Respondent may pay the costs in instalhnents every 12 months,
as long as each payment totals at least one third of the costs and the first
payment is made within sixty (60) days of the date of this Final Order;

13
(1) ln the event the ()ED Director is of the opinion that Respondent, during
the probationary period, failed to comply with any provision of the
Agreement, this Final Order, or any disciplinary rule of the USPTO Rules
of Professional Conduct, the OED Director shall: (i) issue to Respondent an
Order to Show Cause why the USPTO Direetor should not order that
Respondent be immediately suspended for up twenty-four (24) months for
the violations set forth in the Joint Legal Conclusions, above; (ii) send the
Order to Show Cause to Respondent at the last address of record
Respondent furnished to the OED Director pursuant to 37 CFR § 11,11(a);
and (iii) grant Respondent fifteen (15) days to respond to the Order to Show
Cause; and

(2) In the event that after the 15-day period for response and after the
consideration of the response, if any, received from Respondent, the OED
Director continues to be of the opinion that. Respondent, during the
probationary period, failed to coinply with any provision of the Agreement,
this Final Order, or any disciplinary rule of the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct, the OED Director shall; (i) deliver to the USPTO
Director or his designee: (A) the Order to Show Cause; (B) Respondent's
response to the Order to Show Cause, if any; ancl (C) argument and evidence
causing the OED Director to be of the opinion that Respondent failed to
comply with any provision of the Agreement, this Final Order, or any
disciplinary rule of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct during the
probationary period; and ,(ii) request that the USPTO Director imtnediately
suspend Respondent for up to twenty-four (24) months for the violations set
forth in the Joint Legal Conclusions, above;

g. Nothing in this Final Order shall prevent the OED Director from seeking
discipline for any misconduct that formed the basis for an Order to Show
Cause issued pursuant to the preceding subparagraph;

h. In the event the USPTO Director suspends Respondent pursuant to
subparagraph f, above, and Respondent seeks a review of the suspension,
any such review of the suspension shall not operate to postpone or otherwise
hold in abeyance the suspension;

Nothing in this Final Order shall prevent the Office fi'om considering the
record of this disciplinary proceeding, including this Final Order:

(1) when addressing any further complaint or evidence of the same or
shnilar misconduct concerning Respondent brought to the attention
of the Office; and/or

(2) in any future disciplinary proceeding against Respondent (i) as art
aggravating factor to be taken into consideration in determining any
discipline to be imposed, and/or (ii) to rebut any statement or
representation by or oii Respondent's behalf; and/or

14
(3) in connection witb any request for reconsideration submitted by
Respondent pursuant to 37 C,F,R. § 11.60;

The OED Director shall electronically publish this Final Order at OED's
electronic FO1A Reading Room, which is publicly accessible at:
latp;//foiadocuments,uspto,gov;

k. The OED Director shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is
materially consistent with the following:

Notice of Reprimand and Probation

This notice concerns Larry W, Brantley of Redstone At'senal,
Alabama, a registered practitioner (Registration No. 46,052) and an
attorney licensed in the state of Alabama. The Director of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has publicly
repthnanded Mr. Brantley, Mr. Brantley is also serving a 36-rnonth
probationary period. Mr, Brantley's conditions of probation include
an annual six-hour CLE requirement in ethics, forty (40) hours of
annual pro bono law serviee or certain other volunteer services, and
full payrnent of the USPTO's costs inctured in connection with his
disciplinary proceeding.

While Mt'. Brantley was employed as a patent attorney by the U.S.
Army, he represented private clients before the USPTO for
compensation. The Army had authorized Mr. Brantley to engage in
limited outside practice of law, but prohibited him from engaging
in, inter alia, "outside employment involving patent law,"
"representation of clients before the USPTO or any other
department or agency of the U.S. Government," and "outside
employment involving patent prosecution or any other activities that
require interaction with the USPTO." Although Mr. Brantley did not
enter formal appearances at the USPTO on behalf of his private
clients, he drafted documents contemplated to be filed with the
Office on behalf of private clients, without attribution to him or
naming him as the attorney of record and faxed such documents to
the USPTO, Stieh conduct bas been referred to as "ghostwriting,"
In addition, Mr. Brantley provided patent searches and patentability
opinions for his private clients, He also failed to withdraw as
attorney of record from three private clients' pending trademark
applications when he returned to employment by the Army aller a
hiatus practicing law in the private sector,

Providing prelirninary patentability opinions and conducting a
patent search for another are activities that constitute practice before
the Office, • A practitioner assisting another by providing
consultation in anticipation of filing and preparing patent 9r

15
trademark documents that are later filed with the USPTO is practice
before the Office, even if the practitioner does not personally sign
or file the documents with the USPTO or enter an appearance at the
USPTO. "Ghostwriting" a document for a client in contemplation
the document being filed with the USPTO is practice before the
Office and constitutes representation of the client before the
USPTO.

This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Mr.
Brantley and the OED Director pursuant to the provisions of
35 U,S,C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and 37 C.F,R, §§ 11.19, 11 20, and
11,26. Disciplinary deeisions involving practitioners are posted for
public reading at tile OED Reading Room, available at:
http://feiadocuments,uspto.gov;

The Office of Enrollment and Discipline offers an anonymous
hotline for practitioners who may have general questions about their
ethical obligations. Although OED does not give formal opinions, it
can help a practitioner identify the provisions of the USPTO Rules
of Professional Conduct that may be implicated by the practitionees
acts or omissions, as well as published decisions in the OED
Reading Room. Praetitioners seeking sueh assistance may telephone
571 272-4097 and ask to speak to the "Attorney of the Day" or may
send an email message to OED@USPTO,gov;

1, Respondent, by his agreement, has waived all rights to: (1) seek
reconsideration of this Final Order under 37 C.F.R. § 11,56, (2) have this
Final Order reviewed under 37 CYR, § 11.57, and (3) otherwise to appeal
or challenge this Final Order in any manner; and

Within a reasonable periocl after the entry of this Final Order approving the
Agreement, the OED Director shall file a motion dismissing the pending
disciplinary action without prejudice,
• Digitally signed
Users, Shewchuk, Shewchuk, Davidby Users,
Date: 2023,04.11 15:47:54
David -04'00'
Da.te David Shewehuk
Deputy General Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office

on delegated authority by

16
WV/PRIVILEGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY Ehat the Ibregoing Final Order was sent, on this day, to the parties
in the limner indicated below-

Via first-class mail and e-mail:

Mike McCabe
MCCABE & :ELP
9233 Fall River Lanc
Potomac, MD 20854
mike(@,mccabeali.com
Counsellor Respondent

Via e- nail:
Sohn Ferman
Robin Crabb
111111111111111111111111111111

Counselor the OED Director

.///43/,142.3
Date United States Ptxtent and Trademark Office
P,O, Box. 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313 1450

Controlled by; Wilted States Patent and Trademork Office, OCAO, RICPO, W1-272-9990

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Name

Email

Phone

What do you need help with?

The HTML version is missing content

The HTML version contains errors

The reading order is incorrect or confusing

I need help understanding the content

I need a different alternative format

Other

Preferred format

Additional details

Urgency Urgent Soon Not urgent

Go to Top