Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/373-u-s-379-606615610
Timestamp: 2020-02-29 06:43:35
Document Index: 399161346

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 8', '§ 31', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 1', 'art. 37', '§ 1', '§ 31', '§ 31']

373 U.S. 379 (1963), 322, Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606615610
Docket Nº: No. 322
Citation: 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428
Party Name: Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar
83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428
Florida ex rel. Florida Bar
(c) A federal statute, 35 U.S.C. § 31, expressly permits the Commissioner of Patents to authorize practice before the Patent Office by nonlawyers; the Commissioner has explicitly granted such authority; and Florida may not deny to those failing to meet its own qualifications the right to perform acts within the scope of the federal authority. Pp. 384-385.
2. As so construed, 35 U.S.C. § 31 is constitutional. Pp. 403-404.
(a) By establishing the Patent Office and authorizing competent persons to assist in the preparation of patent applications, Congress has not exceeded the bounds of what is "necessary and proper" to the operation of the patent system established under Art. I, § 8, Ch 8, of the Constitution. P. 403.
(c) In view of the standards prescribed in 35 U.S.C. § 31 to guide the Patent Office in its admissions policy, it cannot be said that Congress has improperly delegated its powers to the administrative agency. Pp. 403-404.
is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, in that, although he is not a member of The Florida Bar, he nevertheless maintains an office . . . in Tampa, Florida, . . . holds himself out to the public as a Patent Attorney . . . represents Florida clients before the United States Patent Office, . . . has rendered opinions as to patentability, and . . . has prepared various legal instruments, including . . . applications and amendments to applications for letters patent, and filed same in the United States Patent Office in Washington, D.C.,
that the work performed by him for Florida citizens is solely that work which is presented to the United States Patent Office, and that he charges fees solely for his work
of preparing and prosecuting patent applications and patent assignments and determinations incident to preparing and prosecuting patent applications and assignments.
1. using the term "patent attorney" or holding himself out to be an attorney at law in this state in any field or phase of the law (we recognize that the respondent, according to the record before us, has already voluntarily ceased the use of the word "attorney");
2. rendering legal opinions, including opinions as to patentability or infringement on patent rights;
3. preparing, drafting and construing legal documents;
4. holding himself out, in this state, as qualified to prepare and prosecute applications for letters patent, and amendments thereto;
5. preparation and prosecution of applications for letters patent, and amendments thereto, in this state; and
6. otherwise engaging in the practice of law.
only insofar as it prohibits him from engaging in the specific activities . . . [referred to above], covered by his federal license to practice before the Patent Office. He does not claim that he has any right otherwise to
engage in activities that would be regarded as the practice of law.1
[83 S.Ct. 1325] We do not question the determination that, under Florida law, the preparation and prosecution of patent applications for others constitutes the practice of law. Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 331 U.S. 486; Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590. Such conduct inevitably requires the practitioner to consider and advise his clients as to the patentability of their inventions under the statutory criteria, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-103, 161, 171, as well as to consider the advisability of relying upon alternative forms of protection which may be available under statute law. It also involves his participation in the drafting of the specification and claims of the patent application, 35 U.S.C. § 112, which this Court long ago noted "constitute[s] one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy," Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171. And, upon rejection of the application, the practitioner may also assist in the preparation of amendments, 37 CFR §§ 1.117-1.126, which frequently requires written argument to establish the patentability of the claimed invention under the applicable rules of law and in light of the prior art. 37 CFR § 1.119. Nor do we doubt that Florida has a substantial interest in regulating the practice of law within the State, and that, in the absence of federal legislation, it could validly prohibit nonlawyers from engaging in this circumscribed form of patent practice.2
But "the law of the State, though enacted in the exercise of powers not controverted, must yield" when incompatible with federal legislation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 211. Congress has provided that the Commissioner of Patents
may prescribe regulations governing the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties before the Patent Office,
35 U.S.C. § 31,3 and the Commissioner, pursuant to § 31, has provided by regulation that
[a]n applicant for patent . . . may be represented by an attorney or agent authorized to practice before the Patent Office in patent cases.
on which are entered the names of all persons recognized as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent.
that he is of good moral character and of good repute and possessed of the legal and scientific and technical...