by Dennis Crouch
A former USPTO patent examiner has petitioned the Supreme Court to review his exclusion from practicing before the USPTO. Shah Behnamian argues that the USPTO wrongfully denied his application to register as a patent attorney based on a disciplinary suspension that he claims was discriminatory retaliation. The case raises some questions about how the USPTO evaluates the moral character of former employees seeking to practice before the agency, and whether patent examination itself constitutes a "profession" warranting certain procedural protections under federal regulations. Behnamian v. Coke Morgan Stewart, No. 25-5251 (U.S. July 26, 2025) (Behnamian Petition) (Behnamian Appx).
Behnamian worked as a patent examiner from 2009 until May 2020, advancing to GS-14 level primary examiner with consistently outstanding performance ratings until close to the end of his employment. He ultimately resigned following what he alleges was discriminatory suspension related to his wife's pregnancy. In particular, in 2019, he was charged with being Absence Without Leave (AWOL) for 30 hours and 15 minutes over several days between April and June 2019, while still allegedly logging hours. He received a five-day suspension that he served in March 2020 and resigned a couple of months later.
After resigning, Behnamian applied to practice before the USPTO as a patent agent. The USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline initially granted his application, but then reversed course after learning (1) about the suspension that (2) Behnamian did not disclose in his registration application. Behnamian has been pursuing registration since then, in litigation that has now reached the Supreme Court.
To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.
