35 U.S.C. § 32
Section 32 · Suspension or exclusion from practice
Amended 5 times on record
Applied in 102 court decisions — leading case Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar (1963)
Most recently applied in Polidi v. Matal (October 2017)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 5 U.S.C. § 706
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
The Director may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office, any person, agent, or attorney shown to be incompetent or disreputable, or guilty of gross misconduct, or who does not comply with the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D) of this title, or who shall, by word, circular, letter, or advertising, with intent to defraud in any manner, deceive, mislead, or threaten any applicant or prospective applicant, or other person having immediate or prospective business before the Office. The reasons for any such suspension or exclusion shall be duly recorded. The Director shall have the discretion to designate any attorney who is an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct the hearing required by this section. A proceeding under this section shall be commenced not later than the earlier of either the date that is 10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding occurred, or 1 year after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding is made known to an officer or employee of the Office as prescribed in the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D). The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, under such conditions and upon such proceedings as it by its rules determines, may review the action of the Director upon the petition of the person so refused recognition or so suspended or excluded.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Amendment of Section
Pub. L. 112–29, §20(j), (l), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 335, provided that, effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, this section is amended by striking “of this title” each place that term appears. See 2011 Amendment notes below.
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §11 (R.S. 487, amended Feb. 18, 1922, ch. 58, §3, 42 Stat. 390).
See note under section 31.
Amendments
2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §20(j), struck out “of this title” after “2(b)(2)(D)” first time appearing.
Pub. L. 112–29, §9(a), substituted “United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia” for “United States District Court for the District of Columbia”.
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(k)(1), inserted before the last sentence “A proceeding under this section shall be commenced not later than the earlier of either the date that is 10 years after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding occurred, or 1 year after the date on which the misconduct forming the basis for the proceeding is made known to an officer or employee of the Office as prescribed in the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D).”
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)]. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in first and last sentences.
Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4719], inserted before last sentence “The Director shall have the discretion to designate any attorney who is an officer or employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to conduct the hearing required by this section.”
Pub. L. 106–113, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4715(c)], substituted “2(b)(2)(D)” for “31”.
1975—Pub. L. 93–596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.
Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(k)(3), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 291, provided that: “The amendment made by paragraph (1) [amending this section] shall apply in any case in which the time period for instituting a proceeding under section 32 of title 35, United States Code, had not lapsed before the date of the enactment of this Act [Sept. 16, 2011].”
Amendment by section 9(a) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any civil action commenced on or after that date, see section 9(b) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 1071 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
Amendment by section 20(j) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 93–596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–596, set out as a note under section 1111 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.
Report to Congress
Pub. L. 112–29, §3(k)(2), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 291, provided that: “The Director [Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office] shall provide on a biennial basis to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives a report providing a short description of incidents made known to an officer or employee of the [United States Patent and Trademark] Office as prescribed in the regulations established under section 2(b)(2)(D) of title 35, United States Code, that reflect substantial evidence of misconduct before the Office but for which the Office was barred from commencing a proceeding under section 32 of title 35, United States Code, by the time limitation established by the fourth sentence of that section.”