All registered patent attorneys and patent agents (registered practitioners), as well as attorneys practicing in trademark and other non-patent law matters before the USPTO, are bound by the ethical standards set forth in USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 C.F.R. § 11.101. The key ethical rules include some fundamental basics such as: 1.) Do not lie, cheat, or steal. 2.) Do not take on work you do not feel that you are competent to perform. 3.) Avoid conflicts of interest in which a new client is opposed to a current or former client.
Any allegations that a registered practitioner has violated the rules can be filed as a written grievance with the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). The USPTO cautions that allegations against a registered practitioner are serious and attempts to resolve differences or clarify any misunderstandings should first be communicated directly with the practitioner before a grievance is filed. A written grievance filed with the OED is suggested to contain specific information to assist the OED in evaluating the severity of the grievance. The specific information includes:
- Your name, email address, mailing address, and daytime telephone number where you can be reached.
- The name, email address, mailing address, and telephone number of the registered practitioner or attorney.
- Whether you have filed this grievance with any another agency or bar association and, if so, the name of that entity, when the grievance was filed, and what ultimately happened to the filed grievance.
- Whether your grievance involves patent or trademark matter(s) that are pending before the USPTO and, if so, the identity of the patent or trademark matter(s) by the application number(s).
- The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons (witnesses) who can provide information, if necessary, in support of your grievance.
- Explanation of the facts of your grievance in chronological order, including dates.
- Description of the conduct committed by the practitioner that you believe is unethical.
- Copies (originals are explicitly not wanted) of any correspondence and documents, including any emails, retainer agreements, and payment receipts that support your grievance.
The USPTO warns that a submission of a grievance may waive any existing attorney-client privilege. However, all grievances, investigations, and any subsequent private disciplinary action are kept confidential. The address for mailing the written grievance can be found at https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/finding-patent-practitioner, or the grievance may be emailed to OED@uspto.gov.
After a grievance is received, a staff attorney in the OED will determine whether an investigation is warranted. If an investigation is warranted, additional information may be requested. The results of the investigation may include dismissal of the grievance, private discipline, public reprimand, suspension from practicing law before the USPTO for a period of time, or disbarment. Most of the discipline from the OED is reciprocal following discipline by a state bar against an attorney. If the OED is properly notified of the discipline, the reciprocal discipline by the OED will run concurrently with the state bar discipline.
One of the most common ethical offenses disciplined by the OED is related to trademark signatures. USPTO regulations require the person named as the signatory on an electronic trademark document to be filed with the USPTO to personally enter his or her electronic signature on the documents (either the attorney or the party) (17 C.F.R. § 2.193(a)(2), (c) and (e)). The signatory must manually enter the elements of the electronic signature. That is, another person may not sign for the signer, and non-attorneys may not sign the attorney's name (TMEP 611.01(b)). Additionally, a patent practitioner is not allowed to enter a client's signature.
Disciplinary actions for such offenses in 2025 include probation ranging from 6 to 20 months, and suspension of practice ranging from 4 to 6 months. Resignation as a patent practitioner with the USPTO may commute such discipline or simply delay such discipline if reinstatement occurs. Further, it is common for remedial education courses to be required before the OED will approve reinstatement. More severe disciplinary actions result when the respondent knowingly continues to allow their signature to be used improperly and/or fails to communicate to the clients affected by the improper signatures. The lesson to be learned is that patent practitioners should ensure that trademark applications are properly signed by the appropriate party in all cases. Further, if an improper signature is identified, immediate action should be taken to notify the USPTO and any affected clients.
Ethical issues involving the violation of the rules of "do not lie, steal, or cheat" are also investigated and disciplined by the OED. Some examples of these violations include fabrication of a Bachelor of Science degree in order to enroll in law school, stealing funds, lying to clients, and filing documents containing inflammatory statements towards a presiding judge. As these violations tend to also include criminal offense, the disciplinary action is typically more severe than violations involving trademark signature offenses. In 2025, the disciplinary actions ranged from suspension for one to three years to disbarment. In cases involving criminal offenses (i.e., stealing funds), criminal probation and fines can also be required. The message remains the same as it always is: Do not lie, steal, or cheat. Additionally, never file documents with inflammatory statements against the presiding judge.
A unique subset of ethical issues is emerging as the patent and trademark industry relies more and more on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). A recent final order published by the OED involved the use of AI to assist in generating a rebuttal brief for the TTAB (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board). Cases were cited in the brief based on AI generated information and presented as evidence when, in fact, those cases did not exist or did not discuss the topics that they were asserted as discussing. In one example, because the respondent cooperated fully with the OED investigation, the resulting disciplinary action included a mandatory two hours of CLE (continuing legal education) on the use of generative AI in legal practices. The lesson to be learned here is that the use of AI may be acceptable as long as cases being cited are actually verified to be real and the facts presented in any case are known as true by the practitioner presenting them.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
