15.2 USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct

15.2 USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct

Administrative practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office demands strict adherence to professional ethics. The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, codified at 37 C.F.R. Part 11, govern the ethical duties of all registered patent attorneys, registered patent agents, and individuals granted limited recognition. The Patent Bar examination regularly tests Part 11 rules, focusing on conflicts of interest, competence, fee handling, duty of candor, Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) proceedings, and the boundaries of patent agent practice.

---

Framework of 37 C.F.R. Part 11

In 2013, the USPTO updated its professional conduct framework from the former Code of Professional Responsibility (37 C.F.R. Part 10) to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (37 C.F.R. Part 11), which closely mirror the American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Part 11 applies to all matters before the Office, whether involving patent prosecution, trademark registration, or PTAB trial proceedings.

---

Practitioner Competence & Scope of Representation (§ 11.101)

Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.101, a practitioner must provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Key aspects tested on the exam include:

• Technical Competence: Because patent prosecution requires understanding technical subject matter, a practitioner must not accept a case in an unfamiliar scientific discipline unless they can attain competence through reasonable preparation or association with a competent practitioner.
• Scope of Representation (§ 11.102): A practitioner must abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and must consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.
• Diligence (§ 11.103): A practitioner must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client, avoiding unexcused delays that risk abandoning a patent application.

---

Conflict of Interest Rules (§§ 11.107–11.110)

Ethical conflicts of interest are among the most heavily tested ethics topics on the Patent Bar exam.

Current Client Conflicts (37 C.F.R. § 11.107)

A practitioner shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists if:

1. The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
2. There is a significant risk that representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the practitioner's responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or a personal interest of the practitioner.

Waiver Exception: A practitioner may represent a client despite a concurrent conflict ONLY if:

• The practitioner reasonably believes they can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
• The representation is not prohibited by law;
• The representation does not involve asserting a claim by one client against another represented by the practitioner in the same proceeding; and
• Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Former Client Conflicts (37 C.F.R. § 11.109)

A practitioner who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Imputed Disqualification (37 C.F.R. § 11.110)

While practitioners are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so under §§ 11.107 or 11.109, unless the prohibition is based on a personal interest or appropriate ethical screening ('ethical wall') is established.

---

Fee Agreements and Financial Safeguards (§§ 11.105 & 11.115)

• Reasonable Fees (§ 11.105): A practitioner shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or unreasonable amount for expenses. Fee scope and basis must be communicated to the client, preferably in writing.
• Safeguarding Property & Escrow Accounts (§ 11.115): Practitioners must keep client funds (such as advance fee retainers or official USPTO fee advances) in a separate client trust account maintained as Rule 11.115 requires. Commingling practitioner personal/firm funds with client trust funds is a severe ethical violation that leads to immediate OED investigation.

---

Duty of Candor and Honesty (§ 1.56 & § 11.303)

Practitioners owe an unyielding Duty of Candor and Good Faith to the USPTO:

• Duty to Disclose Material Information (37 C.F.R. § 1.56): Every individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application (including the practitioner) has a duty to disclose all information known to be material to patentability via an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS).
• Candor Before the Tribunal (37 C.F.R. § 11.303): A practitioner shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to the USPTO, fail to correct a material false statement, or offer evidence known to be false.

---

OED Oversight, Investigations, and Sanctions (§§ 11.32–11.60)

The Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED), headed by the OED Director, investigates practitioner misconduct and enforces compliance:

1. Grievances & Investigations (§ 11.32): The OED Director investigates possible violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct upon receipt of a grievance or credible information.
2. Probable Cause Panel (§ 11.36): If the OED Director believes a violation occurred, the matter is submitted to a Probable Cause Panel. Upon a finding of probable cause, a formal disciplinary complaint is filed.
3. Adjudication (§ 11.39): Formal disciplinary hearings are conducted before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
4. Disciplinary Sanctions: Disciplinary penalties include: (a) Exclusion/Disbarment, (b) Suspension, (c) Public Reprimand, or (d) Probation.
5. Statute of Limitations (35 U.S.C. § 32): A disciplinary proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 32 must be commenced not later than 10 years after the date on which the misconduct occurred, or 1 year from the date on which the misconduct is reported to the OED, whichever is earlier.

---

Unauthorized Practice of Law & Patent Agent Boundaries (§ 11.505)

Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.505 and the landmark Supreme Court decision Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar (373 U.S. 379):

• Registered Patent Agents: Non-attorney patent agents registered with the USPTO are federal administrative practitioners authorized to prepare, file, and prosecute patent applications before the USPTO. Federal law preempts state law regarding patent prosecution practice.
• Prohibited Conduct for Patent Agents: Patent agents are NOT attorneys and cannot engage in the general practice of law. Agents are prohibited from:
  • Rendering legal advice on state-law matters such as trade-secret or licensing contracts, except for narrowly incidental assignment preparation permitted by federal USPTO-practice authority;
  • Preparing non-patent legal instruments (such as corporate organizational documents or litigation pleadings);
  • Representing clients in federal court litigation or state court proceedings.

---

Ethics Reference Matrix: 37 C.F.R. Part 11 Rules