STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. THE FLORIDA BAR, PETITIONER,
v.
ALEXANDER T. SPERRY, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, modified its prior disciplinary order against attorney Alexander Sperry to permit him to practice before the U.S. Patent Office as a patent agent while prohibiting him from using the title "patent attorney." The case involved the scope of permissible activities for non-lawyer patent practitioners.
The Court held that Sperry may advise, assist, and represent applicants before the U.S. Patent Office to the full extent permitted to registered patent agents, may render opinions on patentability as necessary to assist in patent prosecution, and may hold himself out as qualified to perform such acts. However, he is enjoined from using the term "patent attorney."
“Petitioner's right to refer to himself as a 'Patent Attorney' has been mooted by his voluntary discontinuance of the use of the term 'Attorney'.”
The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning that Sperry's claimed right to use the title was moot due to his voluntary cessation of the practice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSperry had been practicing before the U.S. Patent Office and using the title "patent attorney." The Florida Bar filed a disciplinary petition against …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mandate Of The Supreme Court cases and more on FLexlaw
On review the Supreme Court of the United States, by opinion dated May 27, 1963, reported in 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428, vacated the decision of this Court reported in 140 So.2d 587, Fla., and remanded the cause for further proceedings not .inconsistent with that Court’s opinion.
■ Thereafter we set the matter for argument, at which time counsel for The Florida Bar appeared and was heard. Prior to this argument The Florida Bar filed a motion for entry of order on the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States to which was attached a suggested form of order. Counsel who represented Mr. Sperry in the United States Supreme Court joined in The Florida Bar’s motion but counsel who represented Mr. Sperry in this Court did not do so. Subsequent to the argument’ Mr. Sperry and counsel who represented him here filed a reply and statement of position as to The Florida Bar’s motion for entry of order on the mandate in which Mr. Sperry agreed to all of the proposed order on Mandate presented by The Florida Bar except that portion which would enjoin Mr. Sperry from using the term “patent attorney”. Mr. Sperry argues that under the rules and regulations of the U. S. Patent Office he is required to use that term.
As appears in the opinion of this Court and of the United States Supreme Court Mr. Sperry had, after The Florida Bar filed the petition in this proceeding, but before his brief was filed, voluntarily ceased to use the term “patent attorney”. As explained in a footnote to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court “Petitioner’s right to refer to himself as a ‘Patent Attorney’ has been mooted by his voluntary discontinuance of the use of the term ‘Attorney’.”
Unfortunately for Mr. Sperry his plea that we now decide his right to the use of the term “patent attorney” comes too late.
In conformity with the opinion and mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States entered in this cause the opinion and decision of this Court is vacated and its effect modified so as not to prevent the respondent Sperry from (a) advising, assisting and representing applicants before the United States Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution of their applications for patents, and performing and doing all acts and things to the full extent permitted to be done by registered agents as provided under the Rules of Practice of the United States Patent Office in patent cases; (b) rendering opinions as to patentability insofar as the giving of such opinions may be necessary to advise and assist applicants in the preparation and prosecution of patent applications and amendments thereto; and (c) holding himself out to the public as qualified to perform the acts set forth in (a) and (b) above.
Except as modified by this order the opinion and decision of this Court hereto*231fore rendered in this cause shall remain undisturbed
It is so ordered.
DREW, C. J., and TERRELL, THOMAS, THORNAL, O’CONNELL and HOB-SON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. McGREGOR, 336 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 1976)…s a party defendant, but he was subsequently dismissed because his employment ceased after this suit commenced. . State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1962), vacated, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963), on remand 159 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1963); Florida Bar v. Drury, Case No. 36,959, Sup.Ct. of Fla., Opinion filed June 5, 1968 (Unreported Order). . See generally Zichlin v. Dill, 157 Fla. 96, 25 So. 2d 4 (1946); Chisman v. Moylan, 105 So. 2d 186 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1958); 5 Fla.Jur.,…
-
The Fla. Bar. in re Petition to Amend Code of Prof'l Responsibility, 327 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 1976)…d the practice of law, but solely because the area has been pre-empted from regulation by this Court. See, e. g., State ex rel. Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962), vacated, 373 U.S. 379, 83 S.Ct. 1322, 10 L.Ed.2d 428 (1963), on remand 159 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1963). Recognizing this, Florida Legal Services, Inc., as amicus curiae, sought the change in language adopted by the majority. I am completely in sympathy with the activity in which Florida Legal Services, Inc. wishes to engage, but I would tr…
Authorities Cited
- Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida BAR, 373 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1963)
- State of Fla. ex rel. THE Fla. BAR v. Sperry, 140 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1962)