What are a practitioner’s responsibilities regarding client communication after a patent issues?
Even after a patent issues, practitioners have ongoing responsibilities regarding client communication, particularly concerning USPTO correspondence. The MPEP 2222 references 37 CFR 11.104, which states:
“A practitioner should not fail to timely and adequately inform a client or former client of correspondence received from the Office when the correspondence: (i) could have a significant effect on a matter pending before the Office, (ii) is received by the practitioner on behalf of a client or former client, and (iii) is correspondence of which a reasonable practitioner would believe under the circumstances the client or former client should be notified.”
This means that even if the attorney-client relationship has technically ended with the issuance of the patent, the practitioner still has an ethical obligation to forward important USPTO communications to the client or former client. This responsibility continues even if the practitioner has withdrawn as the attorney of record.
To learn more: