“This pattern of conduct was a deliberate scheme, knowingly executed over a prolonged period of time…to engage in unauthorized representation before the USPTO and circumvent USPTO Rules.” – USPTO Final Order
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Wednesday, October 3, issued a final order terminating approximately 3,100 patent applications for intent to deceive the Office via fraudulent “S-signatures.” The USPTO said in a news alert yesterday that the “scale of this fraudulent action is a stark reminder for registered practitioners of their obligations under the USPTO Rules of Practice to take reasonable precautions to protect their credentials and alert the USPTO of any suspected fraud.”
Practitioner Jie Yang first became aware of her signature being entered on thousands of documents without her knowledge in October 2022, when the Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) sent her a request for information (RFI) regarding a number of micro entity certifications which exceeded the limits for such status set forth under USPTO rules. Yang responded that she had not signed the documents and subsequently informed the Office that “thousands of applications” had been filed with the unauthorized use of her signature.
The filings were submitted by Dr. Yu “Mark” Wang “or another individual associated with Mark Wang or his firm, Wayne & King IP. According to a USPTO order issued in February 2024, Yang had known Wang since 2001 and met him when they attended the same university in China. She claimed she trusted him as a friend and that he told her he was a patent agent with years of experience in patent preparation and prosecution. However, Wang is neither a registered practitioner nor licensed to practice law.
Wang offered Yang “an opportunity to gain practical patent prosecution experience working at W&K, and she agreed to work with him to acquire experience with patent prosecution,” according to the order. He eventually added her to 12 Customer Numbers that he set up, which she was not aware of and did not authorize. Yang was ultimately “publicly reprimanded” and placed on probation for 12 months. However, she was “considered to be a registered practitioner in active and good standing with the US PTO notwithstanding being placed on probation” and still allowed to practice before the Office. The OED Director acknowledged that Yang was “extraordinarily prompt, candid” and provided “full cooperation with OED’s investigation.”
The USPTO issued Wang an order to show cause on August 25, 2023, asking him to explain why certain sanctions should not be imposed for the alleged conduct but no response was filed by the deadline. The Office thus issued the final order terminating the applications yesterday, determining that Wang’s behavior warranted sanctions in the form of termination of the proceedings:
“[T]he affirmative acts of misrepresentation to the USPTO constitute a pattern of activity which is egregious in the magnitude of harm to the administrative process, in regards to both time and expense. One or more persons affiliated with W&K intended to deceive the USPTO into believing the submissions were proper. This has impaired the USPTO’s ability to perform its statutorily-mandated duty of issuing patents that comply with U.S. patent law. This pattern of conduct was a deliberate scheme, knowingly executed over a prolonged period of time from at least 2020through 2022, to engage in unauthorized representation before the USPTO and circumvent USPTO Rules.”
USPTO Director Kathi Vidal said in the news alert issued yesterday that the sanctions order is “a warning to applicants to ensure they are working with a licensed representative with authority to practice before the USPTO.” She added: “Preventing fraud is an all-hands-on-deck initiative—we want all applicants to be educated on the application process, and all practitioners to safeguard their credentials.”
The Office of Enrollment Discipline keeps a running list of registered practitioners to assist applicants, as well as a list of disciplined practitioners, the news alert noted. It also explains how to identify and avoid common scams.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Author: karenr
Image ID: 28652719
Join the Discussion
4 comments so far.
Keith Lau
December 23, 2024 10:17 amI am one of the patent inventor. Is there a chance to resubmit a new patent application and forget about the history and whatever S signature of Yang ?
Tom
November 13, 2024 09:16 pmI had a few cases transferred to me from Yang that were later terminated due to this. I filed a petition under 37 CFR 1.183 to waive the signature requirement, explaining that my client was a victim and not complicit in the fraud. I got the brush off from the PTO, with the dismissal of my petition having a short statement that the petition failed to show why “justice requires” with no discussion of my actual argument. I’m guessing with so many applications, they just summarily dismissed any petitions. I’m more annoyed now that I know Yang was at least partially complicit and only received a one year suspension while the actual victims lost their patent rights altogether. I’d be interested to hear of other’s success/failure.
Julie Burke
October 4, 2024 10:39 amOn the USPTO’s FOIA pages, I found the Final Order explaining step by step how documents in those 3,100 patent applications came to contain fraudulent S signatures.
This notice suspends the registered patent agent for one year.
Note this final order is labelled as “Redacted” but only one short line of info is redacted out on the last page.
https://lnkd.in/g7-9AHKX
Julie Burke
October 3, 2024 06:21 pmFor those interested in the backstory, here is a link to one of the redacted letters.
“It appears that there are two sets of non-registered persons who have been involved in the unauthorized practice: (I) some Chinese entities (the “China Entities”), which may or may not be law firms, that appear to serve as local representatives of Chinese patent applicants; and (2) at least one individual in the United States, Mr. Yu (“Mark”) Wang, who has been operating under a business name called “W&K IP.” W&K IP is not a licensed law firm and its ownership structure is unclear. I understand Mr. Wang, through at least W&K IP, and possibly an entity called “Wayne & King,” has worked for years with the China Entities and appears to be engaging in the unauthorized practice of patent law before the USPTO.”
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/julie-burke-492264120_redacted-letter-concerning-fraudulent-s-signatures-activity-7247388027046486016-H_Qg?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop