513.02 Petition to Disqualify
37 C.F.R. § 11.19(c) Petitions to disqualify a practitioner in ex parte or inter partes matters in the Office are not governed by §§ 11.19 through 11.60 and will be handled on a case-by-case basis under such conditions as the USPTO Director deems appropriate.
If a party to an inter partes proceeding before the Board believes that a practitioner representing another party to the proceeding should be disqualified (due, for example, to a conflict of interest, or because the practitioner should testify in the proceeding as a witness on behalf of his client), the party may file a petition to disqualify the practitioner. [ Note 1.]
Petitions to disqualify are not disciplinary proceedings and hence are not governed by 37 C.F.R. § 11.19 –37 C.F.R. § 11.60. Rather, petitions to disqualify are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(c) and are determined in the manner specified in that rule.
When a petition to disqualify is filed in connection with a proceeding pending before the Board, the Board immediately issues an action suspending proceedings in the case and advising the parties that no additional papers should be filed by the parties until further notice, pending consideration of the petition. After the petition has been determined or dismissed, the Board issues an action resuming proceedings in the case and taking further appropriate action therein. Petitions to disqualify in matters before the Board are currently determined by the Chief Administrative Trademark Judge under authority delegated by the Director. The Chief Administrative Trademark Judge may further delegate his/her responsibility to a Board judge or Board attorney for signature.
For examples of cases involving petitions to disqualify, see the decisions cited in TBMP § 114.08.
NOTES:
1. With respect to disqualification where the attorney is a witness in the case, such as giving testimony on behalf of the client, see 37 C.F.R. § 11.307; Focus 21 International Inc. v. Pola Kasei Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, 22 USPQ2d 1316, 1317 (TTAB 1992); Allstate Insurance Co. v. Healthy America Inc., 9 USPQ 2d 1663, 1663 nn.4-5 (TTAB 1988) (generally not prudent for an attorney to verify answers to interrogatories since it could expose him or her to additional discovery and even disqualification); Little Caesar Enterprises Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., 11 USPQ2d 1233 (Comm’r 1989) (petition to disqualify counsel on basis that counsel would be called as adverse witness denied). Cf. In re Gray, 3 USPQ2d 1558, 1560 (TTAB 1987) (no weight given to counsel’s affidavit concerning secondary meaning because it would impermissibly make him a witness in the case).