Kroll v. Lee
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 05/22/2017. (jlan)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
MICHAEL I. KROLL,
MICHELLE LEE, Undersecretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Michael 1. Kroll, Esq. ("petitioner" or "Kroll"), has filed a document styled a
"Complaint" [Dkt. 1] allegingthat he was improperlysuspendedfrom practicing as a patent
attorney before the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").^ The USPTO has
responded by treating Kroll's complaint as a petitionfor review, citing Local Civil Rule 83.5,
whichprovides that a "personrefused recognition to practice or suspended... from practice
before the [USPTO] may seek judicial review of such action by filing [in this court] a petition"
for review (emphasis added). "Responseto Petition for Review" ("Resp.") [Dkt. 26]. After
obtaining leave ofCourt, Kroll filed an Opposition^ ("0pp.") [Dkt. 33] and a Supplemental
Submission in opposition ("Supp.") [Dkt. 35]. The Courthas found that oral argument would
^Although Kroll has signed allofhis pleadings as "Attorney and Plaintiff, Pro S^" after briefing
was completedhe filed a "Certification of Receiving Assistanceof Counsel" explainingthat in
preparing his briefs he had received the assistance of an attorney, Edwin D. Schindler,Esq., who
has subsequently been admitted ^o hac vice. Accordingly, Kroll is not entitled to the deference
accorded to ^
^Infact, Kroll styled this document "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," despite the
respondent not having filed a motion to dismiss.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?