37 CFR 11.27
§ 11.27 Exclusion on consent.
United States · 37 CFR — Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights · Status: effective
Cite this
- Citation
- 37 CFR 11.27, § 11.27 Exclusion on consent, United States, version 1 as recorded 2026-07-09, yourstate.us, https://yourstate.us/provision/162467
- Permanent ID
ys:prov:162467@1- SHA-256
b43eba90fc23dd87ce9aea73e9f1684cd2f1e4e15312eac1b67a7e8baf66e47d
The hash is SHA-256 of this version's text, with every run of whitespace collapsed to a single space and the ends trimmed. The ID always leads back here, and checking it says whether the text you cited is still the current version.
Full text
(a) Required affidavit. The OED Director may confer with a practitioner concerning possible violations by the practitioner of the Rules of Professional Conduct whether or not a disciplinary proceeding has been instituted. A practitioner who is the subject of an investigation or a pending disciplinary proceeding based on allegations of grounds for discipline, and who desires to resign, may only do so by consenting to exclusion and delivering to the OED Director an affidavit declaring the consent of the practitioner to exclusion and stating:
(1) That the practitioner's consent is freely and voluntarily rendered, that the practitioner is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and that the practitioner is fully aware of the implications of consenting to exclusion;
(2) That the practitioner is aware that there is currently pending an investigation into, or a proceeding involving allegations of misconduct, the nature of which shall be specifically set forth in the affidavit to the satisfaction of the OED Director;
(3) That the practitioner acknowledges that, if and when he or she applies for reinstatement under § 11.60, the OED Director will conclusively presume, for the limited purpose of determining the application for reinstatement, that:
(i) The facts upon which the investigation or complaint is based are true, and
(ii) The practitioner could not have successfully defended himself or herself against the allegations in the investigation or charges in the complaint.
(b) Action by the USPTO Director. Upon receipt of the required affidavit, the OED Director shall file the affidavit and any related papers with the USPTO Director for review and approval. The USPTO Director may order the OED Director or the practitioner to supplement the record with further information or argument. The OED Director may also file comments in response to the affidavit. If the affidavit is approved, the USPTO Director will enter an order excluding the practitioner on consent and providing other appropriate actions. Upon entry of the order, the excluded practitioner shall comply with the requirements set forth in § 11.58.
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Reinstatement. Any practitioner excluded on consent under this section may not petition for reinstatement for five years. A practitioner excluded on consent who intends to reapply for admission to practice before the Office must comply with the provisions of § 11.58, and apply for reinstatement in accordance with § 11.60. Failure to comply with the provisions of § 11.58 constitutes grounds for denying an application for reinstatement.
Legislative history
This is a federal regulation, adopted through agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act — not enacted by a recorded vote of Congress.