Kroll v. Lee

Filing 41

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
Alexandria Division

MICHAEL I. KROLL,

)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,

V.

MICHELLE LEE, Undersecretary of Commerce
for Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Respondent.

l:16-cv-704(LMB/IDD)

)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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 ^

se litigants.

^Infact, Kroll styled this document "Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss," despite the
respondent not having filed a motion to dismiss.