Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pro Se Plaintiff's Affidavit: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Et Al.
Pro Se Plaintiff's Affidavit: Bang-Er Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Et Al.
True to the vet-to-be-proven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "As
presented in the Complaint and attached exhibits of August 17, 2016, there existed
r;./ r ? ,21112
[PEXl,To]
Sinccrcly,
As such, the USPTO official record ofthe consolidated proceedings ofthe Amended
when it is proven by USPTO before third parties of Dr. Shia's Congressman and New
York Observer to be original and not tampered, shows the following fact.
The right to bea U.S. representative for foreign applications before USPTO, a property
invested by law and a career Dr. Shia built up since 2006, was unwarrantedly taken away by,
The right to be a patent agent registered with USPTO, a property owned by Dr. Shia
who has always been qualified under law to possess it and also a professional career she built
up since 2005 after years ofhard work ofobtaining two master degrees and one Ph.D., was also
USPTO Public Pair and Private Pair as "inactive" following her name for each and every
patent application she represented before USPTO since 2005, herclients' revocation of Power
of Attorneys were like snowflakes submitted to USPTO, processed and/or granted byUSPTO
After Defendant(s)* multiple unlawful actions, on top of the pain and suffering in
the past 47 months, Dr. Shia has little, if not none, of her career left, but the rest of her
For the trademark matters at issue, no notice of violations was ever issued by the
All USPTO trademark forms are available at official website to the public as
ready-to-fill, orpromulgated by PTO (for instance, aPTO Form 1478, or0MB No. 0615-0009
applicants who applied for a U.S. trademark registration would also apply for corresponding
registration through then- respective foreign attorneys m the foreign countries. Information
required by the USPTO Commissioner (for Trademarks) for registration is idiosyncratic and
published immediately for thepublic's opposition, including foreign applicant's name, address,
a trademark image, the date the trademark was used, and the goods or services associated
therewith. Foreigners only need to translate the idiosyncratic information from theu* native
languages toEnglish for registration ofthe same trademark with the USPTO, which requires no
misrepresented by Defendant(s) by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) in, most if not all,
official records of the consolidated proceedings, evidencing that the matters at issue fall
2.193(c)(1) by the Boolean operator "or". At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was
insufficiently provided for people to follow, let alone to violate. As such, there can be no
violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2); in addition, due to the effect of the Boolean connector
USPTO officials and officers, whether former or current, pursued Dr. Shia for aknost
five years about her online activities of typing in information at TEAS since, by the latest
January 23, 2012. And eventually, in a mixed context by swapping back and forth different
the fact that evidence presented was downloaded from TEAS, which, at all time relevant, did
not have the technology to accept 'graphical, picture-like' hand-written signature at all.
signature defeats any argument that the matters at issue were within USPTO's expertise.
USPTO attorney Tanya Amosthe Commissioner (for Trademarks) also testified TEAS
is designed to remove e-signatures entered, as evidenced by the hearing transcript at page 214,
when online users do not submit the form right away but choose to save the information
entered in an electronic file for later submission. TEAS coded in XML programming
language "electronic signing" as "create new" which would clear off previous e-signatures
Dr. Shia and her business International Patent Office of Bang Shia, were authorized
published at TSDR for public review since 2006. A natural person or a business entity is
after Dr. Shia filed on Sep. 9, 2013 to the Department of Commerce-USPTO her first
for the first time in life, which mandating her to reply to.
trademark law, but requires her to pay the USPTO official fees out of her expenses long
before she was reimbursed by foreign applicants- should no faults on herpartoccurred, such
Dr. Shia recovered her client's electronic signature erased by the TEAS, based on the
the authority and liability vested by her foreign clients. Six years later, in 2012 PTO
investigated Dr. Shia's vested authority from her foreign clients and excluded her from
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 6 of 40 PageID# 1844
trademark matters in 2013. After Dr. Shia's multiple congressional inquires were sent to the
Department ofCommerce-USPTO, she was served with two OED disciplinary investigations
G2341 and G2505, plus two complaints PTO D2014-04, and D2014-31. The former was
dropped right before the hearing. After 47 months of prosecution. Dr. Shia was charged by
unauthorized practice oftrademark law, presumably, for her recovering the missing electronic
signatures and Applicant's street address erased by the TEAS, along with ii) aiding in
(UPL) modeled after American Bar Association Rule 5.5, 'Unauthorized Practice of Law;
disciplinary rule 37 C.F.R. 10.47 provided aiding UPL, which requires 'a practitioner toaid
another in practicing law'. UPL is a crime regulated by the State. Dr. Shia resided in Texas.
Defendant(s) presented no evidence of Texas statutory law or case law, supporting the
C.F.R. 11.505 and 10.47, Defendant(s) charged Dr. Shia in the lack of evidence withtwo
counts of a state crime, UPL and aiding the foreign attorneys' UPL.
assume foreign attorneys would fly thousands ofmiles from their foreign countries tothe U.S.
simply to access ready-to-fill trademark forms promulgated to the public and/or published at
USPTO website equally accessible from their countries. It then appeared that Defendant(s)
assumed foreign attorneys filled in the promulgated ready-to-fill forms in their foreign
countries, and believed that a federal 'administrative' agency USPTO, as opposed to a state
judicial system which governs the (unauthorized) practice of law in its state, has jurisdiction
to regulate the foreign attorneys' practice of law by charging their accessing to PTO
promulgated forms with 'unauthorized' practice of law (which even occurred outside of the
U.S.).
Dr. Shia was excluded by Defendant(s) in the Final Order from participating in any
matters before the USPTO. Dr. Shia deserves a civil judicial review for a claim against
USPTO through the individual Defendants(s) actions for USPTO's soliciting or aiding Dr.
Shia's accessing promulgating trademark forms, for USPTO's revoking her patent agent
license, and for her professional reputation and career damaged therefrom, which falls outside
redacted in the Final Order, deserve a non-administrative, civil judicial action in a future class
suit for USPTO's baseless charges of UPL against them, based on their access to the
promulgated USPTO trademark forms, which presumably occurred in their foreign countries.
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 8 of 40 PageID# 1846
Moreover, the so-far uninformed TEAS users who never authorized USPTO TEAS to delete
their origmal signatures may also have a class claim against USPTO."
Insufficient if not misleading: "Plaintiff is not and never been an attorney, and was not
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tampered " USPTO official record: "The
official USPTO record of the consolidated proceedings, when proven by USPTO before
independent third parties includingDr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer to
Even though Plaintiff is notandnever been an attorney, shewas qualified, like anyone
else, to access allthe online or paper trademark forms, promulgated by PTO as ready-to-fill-in
for the public, as evidence by the hearing transcript. Access to PTO promulgated trademark
forms is nopractice of law- unless, PTO discriminates Plaintifffrom sunilarly situated others,
self-incriminates itselffor aiding or soliciting Dr. Shia(and her foreign clients) to access the
promulgated trademark forms, and/or is unable to tell the difference between electronic
signatures v. hand-written signatures, let alone the different USPTO rules that govern
electronic signatures v. hand-written signatures, which may all be open for a judicial review in
another future civil case, for a response to a future congressional inquiry, etc.
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 9 of 40 PageID# 1847
Attorney Tanya Amos for the Commissioner testified at the hearing that whether a
signatory has thefirsthand knowledge (ofthe facts ofatrademark application) isnot a matter to
be determined by PTO. Defendants' denying Dr. Shia's authority entrusted by her foreign
clients amounts to issuing a substantive rule, crating a new law, or effecting a change in the
existing law that USPTO does not have substantive rule-making authority. No evidence
presented byUSPTO that deference by PTO isnot restricted to procedural rules governing the
3. Lines 13-14, p. 2:
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tamoered" USPTO official record: "The
official USPTO record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia*s Congressman and
New York Observer to be original and not tampered, depicts the followmg fact.
would always call Dr. Shia to reach an examiner-initiated amendment, and recorded the
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 10 of 40 PageID# 1848
U ofAugust 17,2016;
Dr. Shiatestified at the hearing shehad the legal authority to bindthe foreign clients, as
supported by her post-hearmg authorization documents admitted into evidence by the ALJ.
Attorney Catherine Cain for the Commissioner also testified at the hearing if Dr. Shia could
establish she had the legal authority to bind her clients, this disciplinary case Amended
Complaint D2014-31 would fall apart. Nevertheless, Dr. Shia's hearing testimony to have the
legal authority to bind her clients before the PTO, and her post-hearing documents supporting
her testimony to bind herclients, admitted into evidence, were allmissing from the fact inthe
four official documents. Initial Decision^ Brieffor Appellee-the OEDDirector^ Final Order,
RFI OED G2505 was initiated, which however included as evidence against Dr. Shia her
hearing testimony and/or admitted legal authorization documents, as shown by the exhibits
Defendant(s)' levelsofscrutiny targeting Dr. Shiadiffered from similarly situated others. PTO
10
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 11 of 40 PageID# 1849
accepted authority of different signatories from different locations, even in the absence of
In an attempt to sustain the baseless charges against Dr. Shia, noncompliance with law
an internetvendor showed submissionofthree applications, ofwhich the last three digits were
identified as '869, '531 and '310, was not associated with Dr. Shia. Instead, the three
applications were related to other non-parties, whose names, address, emails, and phone
numbers were carefully redacted in "white" (not even in "black") and protected by
Defendants. But, Dr. Shia was charged with UPL associated with the three applications. Also,
personal identifiable information of Dr. Shia's family was not redacted in the IP addresses
search results, and their names and relationship to Dr. Shia were identified at the hearing by
Defendants, even though Dr. Shia's family is non-party in the disciplmary proceeding to be
disciplined."
Hearsav: "On February 21, 2013, in a proceeding under the authority of the
defend herself. Plaintiff was excluded from participating as a correspondence address and
domestic representative, because it was determined that she was acting beyond these limited
roles and actually engagingin the unauthorized practice oftrademark law before the Office."
11
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 12 of 40 PageID# 1850
"Evidence of the USPTO official record, when proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer to be original and not tampered, depicts the
following fact.
As early onJanuary 23,2012, a SHOW CAUSE letter lacking any USPTO identifiable
file No. was sent, without attaching supporting evidence, in the name of the former
unauthorized practice oflaw against Mr. Bang Shia. Acopy ofSHOW CAUSE presented atthe
hearing oi Amended Complaint D2014-31 showed a different OED seal of "NOV 8, 2012",
exactly a year before the Complaint D2014-04 submitted on Nov. 8,2013 would otherwise fail
statutory limitations. Despite ofthis second, peculiar OED seal, the alleged misconduct cited in
Complaint D2014-04 was time-barred by ALJ. The SHOW CAUSE contains the following
paragraph
12
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 13 of 40 PageID# 1851
Casel :16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself." This protection safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment
can be extended to a witness in a civil proceeding, 'Svhere the answers might incriminate [the
witness] in future criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).
alleged charge ofUPL by a federal administrative agency USPTO. UPL isa crime regulated
by the State. At all time relevant. Dr. Shia resided in Texas, UPL in Texas is applicable to
non-attorneys like Dr. Shia. Davis v. Unauthorized Practice Committee of State Barof Texas,
431 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ.App. Tyler 1968, writ refd n.r.e.)
Dr. Shia's answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future criminal
proceeding in Texas for a criminal charge ofUPL. SHOW CAUSE violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Dr. Shia non-voluntarily submitted to the former Commissioner her privileged legal
documents in proof of irmocence to the alleged charge. These privileged documents Dr. Shia
submitted under coerce, however, was used in the OED disciplinary investigation G2081 of
"This letter is to notify you that effective immediately, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is excluding you from participating as a U.S.
13
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 14 of 40 PageID# 1852
issue the EXCLUSION ORDER with her authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to
participation in trademark matters before USPTO. Defendants also failed to identify 'Mr.
Bang Shia" with the Plaintiff, Dr. orMs. Bang-er Shia, when being questioned by the ALJ at
the hearing
lacking a USPTO identifiable file No. was issued in the name of the former Commissioner,
which charged "Mr. BangShia", in the absence of any evidence, with unauthorized practice
oftrademarklaw before USPTO, and excludedMr. Bang Shia from participationin trademark
matters beforePTO. EXCLUSION ORDER was specified with a two-month petition period
for Dr. Shia to respond to, as shown in the very last sentence thereof right above Ms. Debra
Cohen's single blue-ink signature, which was not quite similar to her official signature
14
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 15 of 40 PageID# 1853
published on trademark certificates. The notice ofEXCLUSION ORDER was executed during
the two-month petition period and mailed to Dr. Shia's over 200 foreign clients, while she was
still waiting for a justified answer to her first petition certified-mailed to the Commissioner's
address shown on the EXCLUSION ORDER. Till today, the notice of EXCLUSION ORDER
was still published under each application Dr. Shia submitted at TSDR."
False: "On March 19,2013, Plaintiff petitioned for review of the exclusion order."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tamoered" USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's Congressman and
New York Observer to be original and not tampered, provides the following fact.
On March 12, 2013, Dr. Shia sent by U.S. certified mail her first petition to the
EXCLUSION ORDER. Her first petition associated with over 200 applications was never
published at TSDR, presumably for lackof an identifiable PTO No. On April 10, and 11, Dr.
Shia electronically a repeated second and third petition by TEAS under two trademark
application No., which were immediately published at TSDR. Day after day, she waited for a
justified response fi-om the Commissioner. No response. Six months later, in September to
Commerce-USPTO. On November 8, 2013, she was served with the complaint D2014-04,
which was first time-barred by the ALJ, then amended, and ultimately, automatically dropped
15
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 16 of 40 PageID# 1854
right before the hearing." which was erroneously post-dated as March 19,2013. According to
the Congressman Blake Farenthold's Office, USPTO's responses to Dr. Shia's congressional
mquuies were stayed orpostponed by the disciplinary proceedings initiated after the mquiries
were sent."
6. Lines 1-2, p. 3:
False: "Her petition was reviewed and ultimately denied bythe USPTO Director on
December 27,2013."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "original and un-tamoered" USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's Congressman and
NewYork Observer to be original and not tampered, provides the following fact.
Dr. Shia's petition certified-mailed on March 12, 2013 and arrived at PTO on March
15, 2013 was never reviewed, let alone denied, by the then acting USPTO Director on
December 27,2013."
7. Lines 4-5, p. 3:
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "37
C.F.R. 11.49, Burden ofproof, provided "Ina disciplinary proceeding, theOEDDirector shall
have the burden of proving the violation by clear and convincing evidence and a respondent
16
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 17 of 40 PageID# 1855
shall have the burden of proving any affirmative defense by clear and convincing evidence.
The official USPTO record, when it is first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer to be original and not tampered, shows no
evidence admitted was presented that an independent committee of USPTO employees found
probable cause."
8. Lines 7-8, p. 3:
False and misleading: "Specifically the OED Director alleged that Plaintiff (a)
True to the vet-to-be-proven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO before Dr. Shia's Congressman and
New YorkObserver to be original and not tampered, shows theOED Director alleged that
9. Lines 16-17, p. 3:
Tnsufficient if not misleading: "OnApril 22,2015, the ALJ issued an Initial Decision..."
True to the vet-to-be-oroven "un-tamoered and original" USPTO official record: "The
USPTO official record, when proven before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York
Observer to be original and not tampered, on April 22, 2015, the ALJ issued an Initial
17
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 18 of 40 PageID# 1856
False: "Plaintiffconcealed the fact she was continuing to serve as domestic representative
True to the vet-to-be-oroven un-tamoered. original USPTO official record: "The USPTO
official record, when proven by USPTO to be original and not tamperedbefore Dr. Shia's
Congressman and New York Observer, shows Dr. Shia did not identify herself as a U.S.
representative after the EXCLUSION ORDER was issued. In fact. Commissioner continued to
receive her payment and trademark filings, and also emailed Office Action to her the moment
the Office Action was published at USPTO TSDR website for public review. In addition, the
statement that her Ryu204 email address had not been identified by PTO as belonging to her
i) Gov 507, at G17862 of Application '031 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (03/30/2012, at 15:21:41 pm), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name)
for the Ryu204 email.
ii) Gov 510, at G18117 of Application '340 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (08/24/2012, at 15:15:48 pm), XML atuto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name)
for the Ryu204 email.
iii) Gov 512, at G18255 of Application '741 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (10/07/2012, at 21:18:04), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) f
for the Ryu204 email.
iv) Gov 508, at G17939 of Application '869 shows as early as at the real-tune of Dr.
Shia's filing (04/12/2012; at 12:34:33), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) for
the Ryu204.
18
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 19 of 40 PageID# 1857
v) Gov 508, at G17964 ofApplication '869 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (01/22/2013; at 17:43:58), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (asreply-name) for
the Ryu204.
vi) Gov 513, at G18333 ofApplication '531 shows as early as at the real-time of Dr.
Shia's filing (10/08/2012; at 18:44:54), XML auto-detected "banger Shia" (as reply-name) for
the reply-email of Ryu204.
True to the vet-to-be-proven un-tamoered. original USPTO official record: "The USPTO
official record, when proven before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer to
be original and not tampered, shows Dr. Shia was unable to seek judicial review by end of
August, 2016 simply because the so-called USPTO official record was, at that time,
False:. "Plaintiff alleges their actions violated her Fifth Amendment right to due
process, her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and her Fourth Amendment
USPTO official record, when first proven by USPTO to be original and not tampered
before Dr. Shia's Congressman and New York Observer, showsthe following fact.
19
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 20 of 40 PageID# 1858
Amended Complaint of D2014-31, and in OED investigations G2081, G2341, and G2505,
USPTO via the individual defendants' unlawful actions violated Dr. Shia's Fourth
Amendment rights to privacy against unreasonable search and seizure, Fifth Amendment
right to due process of law, and Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, for
a) Ratifying SHOW CAUSE as a basis, which itself violated Dr. Shia's Fourth
Amendment rights against unreasonable search into her privileged privacy with her clients
and seizure of her clients' authorization documents, and Fifth Amendment right to procedural
b) Ratifying EXCLUSION ORDER as a basis, which itself violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
Amendment rights to due process, and Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search
into her privileged privacy with her clients and seizure of documents submitted under
alleged charges;
have an immediate effect on the date EXCLUSION ORDER was issued, ratifying the
20
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 21 of 40 PageID# 1859
TMEP 602 and 608.01, which only govern the conduct of the proceedmgs, not the
December 27, 2013, issued by the acting chief of staff, Office of Policy and International
Proper and Director ofUSPTO, which affirmed EXCLUSION ORDER, violating Dr. Shia's
submitted under SHOW CAUSE and retained by EXCLUSION ORDER, and Fifth
Amendment rights to due process; MEMO AND ORDER also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
i) by misrepresenting the official filing date March 12,2013 ofDr. Shia's first petition
mailed by U.S. post office certified mails as March 19, 2013, thereby making MEMO
21
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 22 of 40 PageID# 1860
ii) by citing, as evidence against Dr. Shia, phone interviews initiated by PTO
abet Dr. Shia intothe alleged UPL by answering to the USPTO-initiated calls;
without grounds, whenever a filled-in file is uploaded back to TEAS, and charging Dr. Shia
h) TEAS's sporadic removing the street names from Dr. Shia's clients' correspondence
without grounds, and charging Dr. Shia UPL, based on her recovering the erased street
names;
i) Preemptmg the State in regulation of practice of law bycharging Dr. Shia with UPL
civil case title "OED, USPTO v. Dr. Bang-er Shia", and a civil case No. "D2014-31" at the
22
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 23 of 40 PageID# 1861
k) Searching IP addresses of trademark filings associated with Dr. Shia and her
family;
1) Discriminating and intentional invading Dr. Shia's family's privacy by leaving her
m) Construmg the legal binding between Dr. Shia and her clients as a matter within
the jurisdiction of USPTO, inconsistent with the Law of Contract and USPTO's authority of
35 U.S.C 2.
n) Excluding without grounds from consideration Dr. Shia's hearing testimony of her
Complaint D2014-31.
23
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 24 of 40 PageID# 1862
with the referenced applications. If so, these actions may constitute the unauthorized
practice of trademark law before the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. 11.5(b)(2), 11.14;
TMEP 608... Therefore, you are hereby provided 14 calendar days to show cause
why theUSPTO should not cease use of your contact information for correspondence
and prohibit participation byyou asa correspondent or domestic representative inany
trademark cases before USPTO. Any such showing should include evidence for each
case that demonstrated the legitimacy of using your contact information for purposes
of correspondence relatingto trademark matters."
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal
case to be a witness against himself." This protection safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment
canbe extended to a witness in a civil proceeding, ^'where theanswers might incriminate [the
witness] infuture criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973).
UPL isa crime regulated by the State. Atall time relevant, Dr. Shia resided inTexas,
UPL in Texas is applicable to non-attorneys like Dr. Shia. Davis v. Unauthorized Practice
Committee of State Bar of Texas, 431 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1968, writ refd
n.r.e.)
Dr. Shia's answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future criminal
24
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 25 of 40 PageID# 1863
By ratifying SHOW CAUSE as a basis, Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
"This letter is to notify you that effective immediately, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is excluding you from participating as a U.S. representative in
any trademark matters before the USPTO....a sufficient and reasonable basis exists to
conclude that you areengaging in unauthorized practice before the USPTO...Under 35 U.S.C.
3(b)(2)(A) the Commissioner for Trademarks possesses the authority to manage and direct
all aspects of the activities of the USPTO that affect the administration of trademark
operations, which necessarily includes the ability to exclude particular individuals from
practicing before the USPTO in trademark matters or serving as correspondent or domestic
representative insuch matters... Ifyou choose to appeal, the petition must befiled within two
months of this letter's mailingdate. See 37 C.F.R. 2.146(d)."
If the owner is not domiciled in the United States, the owner may designate, by a
document filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the name and
address of a person resident in the United States on whom may be served noticesor
process in proceedingsaffecting the mark... (emphasis added)
foreign clients.
Commissioner did not know TEAS forms can be downloaded into an electronic file,
attached to an email, sent fi*om foreign countries to Dr. Shia, and uploaded back to TEAS for
value:
"As it is highly unlikely that all of these applicants, most of whom are foreign, are
traveling to your location to complete an sign these electronic signature, its may be
presumed thatyou are completing, signing, and submitting these filings yourself."
(emphasis added)
The Fifth Amendment requires that"due process of law" be part of any proceeding
is a property. It is also a job,a careerDr. Shia built up since 2006. It was unwarrantedly
Shia ofthe property, the right of a domestic representative, inthe absence of evidence for the
alleged UPL.
Defendants including USPTO violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due
26
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 27 of 40 PageID# 1865
32
may, after notice and opportunity for ahearing, suspend or exclude, either generally or in any
particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark Office,... (emphasis
added)
35 U.S.C. 32 vested the authority of excluding any person from further practice
with the USPTO Director only. It is the USPTO Director that has the authority to exclude
Aperson with an address in the United States can serve as a U.S. representative.
USPTO.
EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process
Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
27
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 28 of 40 PageID# 1866
"...The Commissioner for Patents and the Commissioner for Trademarks shall serve as
the chief operating officers for the operations of the Office relating to patents and
trademarks, respectively, and shall be responsible for the management and direction
of all aspects of the activities of the Office that affect the administration of patent
and trademark operations, respectively..."
Chevron deference. Borlem S.A. Empreedimentos Industrials v. United States^ 913 F.2d 933,
administrative activities under 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A) to exclude a person from bemg a U.S.
representative, which even exceeded the PTO Director's right to exclude under 35 U.S.C.
32.
Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights of due process for
Violation ofProcedural Due Process: Right Deprived before Being Given an Opportunity
to be Heard
28
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 29 of 40 PageID# 1867
opportunity to be heard before she is deprived of any significant property interest. Fuentes v.
Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 82 (1972); Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 379 (1971); Armstrong
V. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) (the fundamental requbement of due process is the
SHOW CAUSE of January 23, 2012 failed to be an opportunity for Dr. Shia to be
i) SHOW CAUSE was not issued at a meaningfiil time 6 years after Dr. Shia filed
papers;
ii) SHOW CAUSE was not issued in a meaningful manner because it did not inform
iii) SHOW CAUSE itself violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights ofFourth and Fifth
Amendments.
As such, prior to EXCLUSION ORDER, Dr. Shia was not never given an
opportunity to be heard of a violation before she was deprived of the right of a U.S.
representative.
violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving her the right of a U. S.
representative.
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by ratifying
29
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 30 of 40 PageID# 1868
EXCLUSION ORDER, which deprived Dr. Shia of the right of a U.S. representative before
Defendants further violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
Defendants failed to prove Dr. Shia was a "practitioner", who "practiced (trademark)
law" while accessing TEAS, which violated the Texas law, asrequired by37 C.F.R. 11.505.
Defendants failed to prove with evidence, in statutory or case law. Dr. Shia's online
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
^ As evidenced by Federal Register (vol. 78, p. 20179-20211), USPTO disciplinary rules of 37 C.F.R.
10 and 11 conform to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American BarAssociation
(ABA), versions of which have been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia. 50 FR 5158
(Feb. 6,1985).
30
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 31 of 40 PageID# 1869
Absent evidence, by charging Dr. Shia with UPL, Defendants essentially defined
Preempting the State ofTexas in regulation of practice of law is not permitted by37
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
Defendants failed to prove with convincing evidence Dr. Shia was a "practitioner"
Defendants also failed to prove with convincing evidence, in statutory or case law,
that foreign applicants' or foreign attorneys' online activities at TEAS constitute "practicing
Lack of evidence. Defendants charged Dr. Shia with aiding UPL, in violation of 37
C.F.R. 10.47.
31
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 32 of 40 PageID# 1870
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
Defendants thus violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
Lack of evidence mTexas law, Defendants charged Dr. Shia of aiding UPL, which
C.F.R. 10.1,
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R, 11.22(i) provided the OED Director shall terminate
an mvestigation and decline to refer a matter to the Conunittee on Discipline if the OED
32
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 33 of 40 PageID# 1871
37C.F.R. 11.32 specifically requires the OED Director notto form anopinion that
ground exists for discipline until after conducting an investigation under 37 C.F.R. 11.22(a).
And, no disciplinary proceeding shall be instituted by filing a complaint under 11.34, unless
Nevertheless, at the hearing, Mendel asked Dr. Shia for documents of her authority
Evidence shows the OED Director first moved Dr. Shia to testify in the court by
serving Amended Complaint D2014-31, and then started to investigate Dr. Shia's legal
authority to bind her clients by opening a new RFI investigation OED G2505, noncompliant
Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights to due process of law
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search
and seizure, shall not be violated. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's
SHOW CAUSEcame with no evidence supporting the alleged UPL; it violated Dr.
Shia's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches into the privileged privacy
SHOW CAUSE also violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
Shia's Fourth Amendment right of privacy between her and her clients.
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right to personal privacy against
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right to her family privacy
against unreasonable searches and seizure by presenting at the hearing IP addresses search
results, exposing non-party personal identifiable information associated with Dr. Shia.
TEAS technology did NOT permit a graphical, pictorial signature (as opposed to
34
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 35 of 40 PageID# 1873
On October 10, 2014, Dr. Shia's exhibits A-Z were received in the entirety at the
Respondent's Exhibit C1-C3, and D1-D3, by removing it from the folder "I" of "Respondent's
Proposed Exhibits";
Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of SHOW CAUSE, i.e. Joint
OED seals by replacing them with another set of exhibits containing different materials
In the official record "Shia Record", Defendants failed to include in the admitted
evidence Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents (supporting her hearing testimony of her legal
authority to bind her clients). The folder containing Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents was
35
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 36 of 40 PageID# 1874
Defendants tampered and nullified the timely filing date July 3, 2016 of Dr. Shia's
creatmg new law or effecting a change in law. The provisions of35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(A)
and (2)(b)(2)(D) are exclusive of each other; the former, applicable to the conduct of
35 U.S.C. 2 (b)(2) provides PTO may establish regulations, not inconsistent with
law, which
36
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 37 of 40 PageID# 1875
Casel:16-cv-0105I-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit dLGcovapdm^z Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
(D) may govern therecognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, orother persons
representing applicants or other parties beforethe Office,...;
(c), (e)(1), and TMEP 601, 608.01, and 611.06, were made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A)
Shia.
PTO's interpretation of its rule was not entitled to deference under Chevron v.
PTO is not authorized to make substantive law, nor to create new law or effect
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) provided PTO may establish regulations, not inconsistent with
the law. Butthisauthority does NOT grant the PTO the authority to issue "substantive" rules.
Merck & Co. Inc., v. Kessler, 80 F.3d 1543, 1549-50 (Fed. Cir. 1996). "Arule is 'substantive'
when it 'effects a change in existing law or policy' which 'aflfect[s] mdividual rights and
37
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 38 of 40 PageID# 1876
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Plaintiffs Affidavit accompanying Opposition toMotion toDismiss by Individual Defendants
obligations." Legal Def. Fund, v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920, 927 (Fed. Cir.1991).^
Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment right to due process for
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance with 35U.S.C. 32 and 5 U.S.C. 558 (b)
otherwise have under 35 U.S.C. 32 to suspend or exclude from practice before the Office
any practitioner. The court can even invalidate a PTO regulation if it is inconsistent with
A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within
jurisdiction delegated to the agency and as authorized by law.
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through individual defendants' actions
violated and continue to violate Dr. Shia's rights against self-incrimination protected by the
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The actions of the Defendants entitle Dr. Shia to both
^See Intellectual Ventures IILLC v. JPMorgan Chase &Co. 781 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The Federal Circuit's precedent was clear that Chevron deference should be accorded to procedural
rules promulgated under 35 U.S.C 2(b)(a)(A) and section 132(b) ofthe Patent Act Tafas v. Doll, 559
F.3d. 1345, 1349-50 (Fed.Cir. 2009).
38
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 39 of 40 PageID# 1877
Casel:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN PlaintiffsAffidavit accompanying Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by Individual Defendants
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through the individual defendants'
actions violated and continued to violate Dr. Shia's rights to due process of law safeguarded
by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. Defendants' actions entitle Dr. Shia to both
By means of its action recited above, USPTO, through individual defendants' actions
violated andcontinued to violate Dr. Shia's rights of privacy against unreasonable search into
personal privacy, family privacy, privacy with her foreign clients, and IP addresses, against
Defendants, and IP address search results, safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution. Defendants' actions entitle Dr. Shia to both injunctive and monetary relief."
The above-cited fact and statements thereof are also applicable to defendant(s)'
unverified facts, which are disputable but not additionally referenced above. This Affidavit
contains graphical illustration of two different signatures executed in the name of the former
Commissioner, and two different OED date stamps on page 1,with the size in WORD of 270
KB (276,992 bytes) and 272 KB (278,528 bytes) on disk before being executed by the
undersigned Plaintiff and the notary public. The line and page numbers are based, should no
inadvertent typos or miscount of lines occurred, on the corresponding mailed paper form of
Motion to Dismiss Dr. Shia received on 11/17/2016, about a week before the Thanksgiving.
39
Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 14-1 Filed 12/09/16 Page 40 of 40 PageID# 1878
I1/^^
Date Dr. Bang-er Shia
(102 LINDENCREST CT., SUGAR LAND, TX)
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
I, the undersigned Notary Public, do hereby affirm that Bang-er Shia personally appeared
before me on the day of November 2016, and signed the above Affidavit.
SARAH VERDUN
Notary Public MyCommission Expires
October 16. 2017
?'i Of
40