USPTO moonlighting restrictions?

[djg2111]

I'm considering working for the USPTO (and I've been following the other thread closely). At the same time, I have several clients that want me to keep working for them once I change jobs.

My understanding is that the USPTO would make me drop my patent agent registration, but can I continue to advise my clients on trademark issues?

[ThomasPaine]

The fact that you're asking such a question on an internet forum rather than researching the law for yourself suggests to me that you shouldn't be representing any clients.

[Oh, Crud]

The fact that you're asking such a question on an internet forum rather than researching the law for yourself suggests to me that you shouldn't be representing any clients.

Given many, many posts to these fora are questions that could indeed be answered via original research of the poster, but are questions we believe the peanut gallery may know top-of-mind, your reply seems harsh, judgmental and quite unfair.

That said, I also have no advice for the OP.

But hopefully one from the peanut gallery will.

[djg2111]

I apologize if my original post was inappropriate. I know I have to address conflict issues myself, but I thought that this may be a problem people faced before.

I also thought that part of the answer would have to do with the employment offers from the USPTO rather than a pure conflict issue. Does the USPTO generally allow moonlighting? A 40 hour work week leaves plenty of time.

[slapsgiving]

While I am unaware if this is applicable to the PTO, I know that other govt. agencies absolutely do not allow direct consulting. However, you can still petition HR to review your request. Teaching is the only component that I've heard that does not require an HR review. Example, adjunct professor at GW or Maryland to teach evening or weekend courses. I imagine this could be definitively answered by a call to OPM.

Common sense wise, this screams conflict of interest.

[mk1023]

http://www.commerce.gov/os/ogc/ethics-law-and-programs-division

This is who you should ask

[djg2111]

Thank you - will do.

[klaviernista]

http://www.commerce.gov/os/ogc/ethics-law-and-programs-division

This is who you should ask

Or you could simply look at 37 C.F.R. 10.101(b) (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/10/101)

10.101(b):  "A practitioner who is an officer or employee of the United States shall not practice before the Office in patent cases except as provided in §10.10(c) and (d) [sic - 10.10 is reserved]." (emphasis added).

Sorry, you cannot examine patents and represent clients before the patent office at the same time.

[mk1023]

OP was just talking about doing trademarks not patents. That rule does not reference trademarks.

[klaviernista]

OP was just talking about doing trademarks not patents. That rule does not reference trademarks.

Right you are.  My apologies.

OP - to the ethics division!

[Sticker Guy]

309Restrictions Upon Employees of >U.S.< Patent and Trademark Office [R-3]
35 U.S.C. 4. Restrictions on officers and employees as to interests in patents.
Officers and employees of the Patent and Trademark Office shall be incapable, during the period of their appointments and for one year thereafter, of applying for a patent and of acquiring, directly or indirectly, except by inheritance or bequest, any patent or any right or interest in any patent, issued or to be issued by the Office. In patents applied for thereafter they shall not be entitled to any priority date earlier than one year after the termination of their appointment.

From what I understand, this only applies if you want to be listed as an inventor. I'm not sure about representing a client as a practitioner...