Friday, 3 February 2017

Henry N Portner – The best person to practice before USPTO

Henry Neil Portner is an alumnus of the James E Beasley School of Law, Temple University. He has been practicing in Wellington, Florida since he acquired a law license in 1991. He has successfully conducted many cases concerning business law and has faced many seemingly impossible, unsurmountable odds and succeeded against all of them both in his career and the cases he has handled.
Charges of Henry N Portner, USPTO are those that earned him a public reprimand for violating a section of the law by sending out mails that failed to comply with the rules laid down by the State of Florida. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency that is part of the US Department of Congress. It is the organization that issues patents to inventors for their invention. The office also takes care of trademark registration for products. This federal agency operates on the fees collected by the users instead of taxpayers money.
The USPTO works by receiving requests for services and charging fees that would cover the cost of the services it provides. It is currently based in Alexandria, Virginia and deals with any misconduct regarding patents or trademarks. In cases, occasionally like the one concerning Henry N Portner, USPTO has moved for a public reprimand. But without reasons for indictment and reprimand, Henry N Portner challenged the USPTO on no less than nine counts.
These nine counts carefully questioned the authority of the USPTO to impose a reciprocal discipline that was termed as arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and unconstitutional. Henry N Portner, USPTO cases also included the reason for which he had sent out the mails – being under business compulsion and economic duress from the Florida bar – to have agreed to the public reprimand and how the rules regulating the Florida Bar violated the rights of attorneys to practice in Interstate Commerce, and also violate the first amendment.
Henry N Portner also questioned the authority of the Florida Bar Board of Ethics to meet in secret, resulting in a violation of his due process rights, and their power to raise his recommended discipline from ‘minor misconduct’ to ‘public reprimand’ without a proper cause.

No comments:

Post a Comment