Shahriar Behnamian v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

Whether a pro se plaintiff has properly served a defendant when the plaintiff serves the defendant himself at the advice of the court's clerk and then the court's clerk notifying the plaintiff that he has properly served the defendant at the time of submitting the executed summons to the court in person, and the District Court failing to meet its obligation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(4)(A) to notify and grant the pro se plaintiff a reasonable extension of time to cure deficiencies in his service of process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5)?

Federal regulations under 37 C.F.R. § 11,7(h)(4)(iii) applies to “[a]n individual who has been disbarred or suspended from practice of law or other profession, or has resigned in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding[.]” The Federal Circuit concluded that being a federal employee working as a primary patent examiner is not performing the duties of a profession and thereby the job of examining U.S. Patent applications is not a profession. On the other hand, the District Court concluded that defenses under C.F.R. § 11.7(h)(4)(iii) only apply to disbarment or suspension from the practice of law. The question presented is: Whether the defenses available under 37 C.F.R. § 11.7(h)(4)(iii) apply to primary patent examiners and hence, would a person’s employment as a primary patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office constitute a profession?

Whether an unintentional mistake on a timesheet always constitutes conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,