Feng Li v. Matal
706 F. App'x 657
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Feng Li, disbarred in New Jersey (2013) for misconduct involving disputed client funds, was subject to reciprocal discipline by the USPTO and was excluded from practice before the Office in 2015 under 37 C.F.R. § 11.24.
- Li argued the New Jersey court lacked jurisdiction over conduct in New York and raised constitutional defenses (due process, equal protection, Ex Post Facto), but did not dispute the fact of disbarment.
- Li filed a pro se complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the USPTO’s exclusion and asserting multiple civil‑rights and constitutional claims; the USPTO moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Li failed to oppose the dismissal motions and did not appear at the dismissal hearing; the district court construed his filing as a petition for review under 35 U.S.C. § 32 and granted the motions, affirming the USPTO’s reciprocal discipline as not arbitrary or capricious.
- The Fourth Circuit transferred Li’s appeal to the Federal Circuit; the Federal Circuit treated the action as reviewable under § 32 and applied APA standards in affirming the district court’s dismissal and its affirmation of the USPTO’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint stated plausible civil‑rights or constitutional claims against the USPTO | Li contended USPTO action violated due process, equal protection, Ex Post Facto and various civil‑rights statutes | USPTO argued the pleadings failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims and moved to dismiss | Court: Li’s pleadings failed to state plausible claims; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether § 32 is the exclusive judicial vehicle to challenge USPTO reciprocal discipline | Li did not explicitly invoke § 32 but sought review of USPTO exclusion | USPTO treated the filing as a § 32 petition for judicial review | Court: Complaint properly construed as a § 32 petition; § 32 governs review |
| Whether USPTO’s reciprocal exclusion was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported | Li argued New Jersey lacked jurisdiction and that discipline violated constitutional protections | USPTO argued it properly applied 37 C.F.R. § 11.24 factors and the record supports exclusion | Court: USPTO applied § 11.24, considered the three factors, and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious; affirmation upheld |
| Whether procedural failures (failure to oppose/missing hearing) affected disposition | Li did not oppose motions or attend hearing; argued nothing to excuse nonappearance | USPTO relied on procedural default and merits insufficiency | Court: No good cause shown; court proceeded; merits dismissal stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Bender v. Dudas, 490 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (APA governs judicial review of USPTO disciplinary actions)
- Sheinbein v. Dudas, 465 F.3d 493 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard of review for § 32 petitions is de novo, reapplying APA standard)
- Superior Indus., LLC v. Thor Global Enters. Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (regional circuit law governs review of Rule 12(b) motions)
- Sucampo Pharm., Inc. v. Astellas Pharma, Inc., 471 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2006) (Fourth Circuit reviews de novo district court dismissal under Rule 12(b))