July 21, 2023
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†
In addition to state bar disciplinary rules, the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) bar has its own set of disciplinary rules, enforced by the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. These rules are set out in 37 C.F.R. Part 11.
On July 14, 2023, the USPTO issued a Final Rule announcing, “Changes to the Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”[1] These changes formalize the USPTO’s Diversion Pilot Program; this program was initially set up “for patent and trademark practitioners whose physical or mental health issues or law practice management issues resulted in minor misconduct.” In formalizing this program, USPTO disciplinary practice is now aligned with most state attorney disciplinary practices.
Other highlights of the final rule are:
The Diversion Pilot Program began in September 2017 as an alternative to formal discipline. “The Diversion Pilot Program is available to practitioners whose physical or mental health issues (e.g., issues tied to substance/alcohol abuse) or law practice management issues (e.g., inadequate client communication or docket management) resulted in minor misconduct and little, if any, harm to a client.”[2] A practitioner’s participation in the Diversion Pilot Program is intended to provide the practitioner with an opportunity to rectify the underlying cause of the practitioner’s misconduct, thus reducing the chance that the misconduct will recur or escalate. Through the program, practitioners may avoid formal discipline by successfully completing diversion agreements with the OED Director. The criteria for participation are set forth at 37 C.F.R. §11.30. More information on the Diversion Pilot Program can be found on the USPTO website, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OED_Diversion_Pilot_Program.pdf .
Before formalizing the Diversion Pilot Program, the USPTO published proposed rules on September 8, 2022, and then received comments from four organizations and one individual. The comments are summarized in the notice of the final rule, https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-14606.pdf
[1] 88 Fed. Reg. 45,078 (July 14, 2023).
[2] https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OED_Diversion_Pilot_Program.pdf
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Conference
19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
May 19-20, 2026
Amsterdam
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.