The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct generally proscribe a practitioner’s failure to cooperate in an OED investigation, or a knowing failure to respond to a lawful request from an admissions or disciplinary authority. See 37 CFR § 11.801(b). Furthermore, OED notes in their requests for information that “if you do not respond to this request for information or any OED request, the Committee on Discipline may draw an adverse inference in making a determination under 37 CFR

Today, the Supreme Court issued an Opinion that held that Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) qualify as “Officers” under the appointments clause of Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (“Appointments clause”). Of interest to patent practitioners is whether or not the appointment of a hearing officer for United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”) cases under 37 CF

Whether you practice in trademark or patent law, you generally want to avoid receiving communication from the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). But what happens when they send you certified letter that includes a Request for Information and Evidence Under 37 CFR 11.22(a) (RFI)?​​ Understanding one of OED's core missions, investigating allegations of misconduct by practitioners, is helpful in guiding your thought process. At first, the fear sets in. If your conduct wa