Banger Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et. Al.

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID# 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
(Alexandria Division)
^281b AUG n P 4= 3U
BANGER SHIA,
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,
ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
V.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASE NO. lOBl' ([TC-

OFFICE
and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MICHELLE K. LEE
Director of the USPTO

600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
and
SARAH HARRIS
Office of General Counsel for USPTO

600 Dulany Street
and
WILLIAM R. COVEY
Office for Enrollment and Discipline

600 Dulany Street
and
MELINDA M. DEATLEY
and
ELIZABETH ULLMER MENDEL
and
JENNIFER A. HARCHICK
Defendants
COMPLAINT
Preliminary Statement
1. The superior who are authorized to discipline the inferior are mandated to follow the
law. Disciplinary proceedings shall not be misused to stay responses to Congressional Inquires
sent to the Department of Commerce-United States Patentand Trademark Office(USPTO).
2. Plaintiff, Dr. Bang-er Shia, is a non-attomey patent agent registered with USPTO
(PTO) since 2005, and is subject to PTO disciplinaryproceedings. Dr. Shia also served as a U.S.
domestic representative or correspondent (U.S. representative) for foreign trademark clients
before USPTO since 2006. This action is takenfor preliminary and final injunction to protect Dr.
Shia's Constitutional rights, to enjoin any enforcement proceedings to the extent they are based,
in whole or in part,on alleged violations of PTO disciplinary rules in disciplinary proceedings, in
particular, in Amended Complaint of the proceeding of D2014-31, conducted by the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline (OED), the Office of Solicitor, and the Office of General Counsel in
violation of Dr. Shia's rights safeguarded by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, and for Bivens damages against certain federal officers and
officials, who in theirpersonal capacities violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights to due process
and privacy against unreasonable searchand seizure, and privilege againstself-incrimination.
3. Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceeding of D2014-31 commenced on July
22, 2014. After a five-day hearing held on October 6-10, 2014 at Washington, DC, on April 22,
2015, the Initial Decision was issued by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Within 30-day
reply period. Dr. Shia timely filed Appeal to Initial Decision. On June 22, 2015, the OED
2
Director responded with Brieffor Appellee, the OED Director. Within the specified 15-day
period, on July 3, 2015, Dr. Shia timely submitted Reply Brief The official filing date of her
Reply Briefof July 3, 2015, however, was post-dated to an expired, untimely filing date ofJuly
6, 2015. On March 4, 2016, the USPTO Director's Final Order was issued to exclude Dr. Shia
from practice before USPTO. Dr. Shia submitted Request for Reconsideration, under a
trademark application *128, which was published at Trademark Status And Document Retrieval
(TSDR) for a week or two, but was later removed from public review. On August 1, 2016, the
USPTO Director's Order Denying Request for Reconsideration was sent. On August 8, 2016,
Harchick mailed Dr. Shia a letter attached with the newly redacted versions of three previously
un-redacted documents: Initial Decision, Final Order, and Order Denying Request for
Reconsideration.
4. This action is brought by Dr. Shia against individual seven Defendants, who violated
Dr. Shia's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, by i)
ratifymg as a basis a SHOW CAUSE letter (SHOW CAUSE), EXCLUSION ORDER, both of
which were issued in the name of the former Commissioner (for Trademarks), and the former
USPTO Director's MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (MEMO AND ORDER); and by ii)
initiating without grounds three OED Requestfor Information (RFI) disciplinary investigations
G2081, G2341, and G2505, two of which developed to two complaints. Complaint of the
disciplmaiy proceeding D2014-04 {Complaint D2014-04) and Complaint of the disciplmary
proceeding D2014-31 {Complaint D2014-31), each amended once, in retaliation to Dr. Shia's
Congressional Inquiries submitted to the Department of Commerce-USPTO regarding her rights

unwarrantedly deprived by the former Commissioner's EXCLUSION ORDER.
5. In 2012, six years after Dr. Shia served as a U.S. representative for about 230 foreign
applicants before PTO, as published at TSDR, she was investigated by PTO. It started with
SHOW CAUSE of January 23, 2012, which coerced Dr. Shia to submit papers in proof of
innocence to a charge of unauthorized practice of law (UPL). Since then. Dr. Shia has been
haunted by PTO for 4 years and 7 months with the same alleged UPL, associated with her online
activities at USPTO Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).
6. TEAS provides ready-to-fill-in trademark forms at the PTO website open to the public,
not restricted to attorneys. The PTO rule regulating electronic signature is provided in 37 C.F.R.
2.193(c), which was misrepresented by Defendants by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2). 37
C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2) was indispensably joined with 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); furthermore,
due to the effect of the Boolean connector "or" there can be no violation of 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c).
7. Dr. Shia received from foreign clients the filled-in online TEAS forms, attached to
emails. Defendants admitted TEAS was designed to remove the original electronic signatures
entered, if online users do not submit the form right away but choose to save the information
entered in an electronic file for later submission. Dr. Shia recovered her client's electronic
signature before submission, based on the authority vested by her foreign clients. Six years later,
PTO denied Dr. Shia's vested authority from her foreign clients; Defendants contended TEAS
was no excuse to exempt Dr. Shia from a charge of UPL.
8. Attorney Tanya Amos for the Commissioner testified at the hearing that whether a
signatory has the firsthand knowledge (of the facts of a trademark application) is not a matter to
4
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, and that deference by PTO shall
be restricted to procedural rules governing the conduct of the "proceedings" (such as the
registration oftrademarks), not governing the conduct of the "practitioners".
9. 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 her clients, admitted into evidence, were all missing from the fact in the
four official documents.Initial Decision, Brieffor Appellee-the OED Director, Final Order, and
Order Denying Requestfor Reconsideration.
10. Under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D), Congress has authorized PTO to establish regulations
governing the recognition and conduct of its practitioners. Acting under this authority, PTO
established the PTO Code of Professional Responsibility ("CPR"), which was replaced by the
Rules of Professional Conduct ("RPC") on May 3, 2013. The two sets of PTO disciplinary rules,
CPR and RPC, govern "solely the practice of patent, trademark, and other law before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office" and shall not be "construed to preempt the authority of each
State to regulate the practice of law". 37 C.F.R. 10.1 (1985); 37 C.F.R. 11.1 (2013).
11. PTO procedures rules, such as Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP),
and 37 C.F.R. 2, were made under the authority of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(a)(A) to govern the
conduct of the "proceedings" in PTO only. In contrast, PTO disciplinary rules, 37 C.F.R. 10
and 11, were made under the authority 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(a)(D) to govern the conduct of the
"practitioners". Lack of evidence of violation. Dr. Shia was charged with a violation of PTO
"procedural" rules, thereby violating Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment right to due process.
12. PTO disciplinary rule 37 C.F.R. 11.505 provided "Unauthorized Practice of Law",
modeled after American Bar Association Rule 5.5, "Unauthorized Practice of Law;
Multijurisdictional Practice of Law", which requires "a practitioner to practice law". Likewise,
disciplinary rule 37 C.F.R. 10.47 provided aiding UPL, which requires "a practitioner to aid
another in practicing law". UPL is a crime regulated by the State. Dr. Shia resided in Texas.
Defendants failed to present evidence, in Texas statutory law or case law, supporting the
allegations that activities at TEAS constitutes "practicing law" in Texas. Noncompliant with 37
C.F.R. 11.505 and 10.47, Dr. Shia was charged with UPL and aiding her client's UPL.
13. Evidence existed of Defendants' selective enforcement targeting Dr. Shia.
Defendants' levels of scrutiny targeting Dr. Shia differed from similarly situated others. PTO
accepted authority of different signatories from different locations, even in the absence of
supporting authorization documents. To sustain the baseless charges against Dr. Shia,
noncompliance with law in violation of Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights was inevitably to occur.
IP addresses searched by an internet vendor showed submission of three applications, of which
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. Shiawere identified at the hearing by Defendants,
even though Dr. Shia's family is non-party in the disciplinary proceeding to be disciplined.
14. This suit seeksdeclaratory and injunctive relief, and monetary damages for loss, pain,
and suffering resulting fi:om three OED FRI investigations of G2081, 02341 and G2505, the
consolidated Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceeding D2014-04 {Amended Complaint
D2014-04) and Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceedmg D2014-31 (Amended
Complaint D2014-31), which were presented before the ALJ until October 6, 2014, as wells as
the outstanding Amended Complaint D2014-31, in violation of Dr. Shia's rights protected bythe
Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Jurisdiction and Venue
15. This suit seeks relief arising under the Constitution of the United States. The court
hasjurisdictionofthis action pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1331.
16. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) as the majority of the actions
giving rise to the complaint occurred in Arlington County, Virginia where the OED and USPTO
are headquartered and wherethe Defendant's offices are located.
Parties
17.Plaintiff Dr. Bang-er Shia is a U.S. citizenand residentof Texas. Dr. Shia appears pro
se before this court. Dr. Shia represented her foreign clients as a U.S. representative in trademark
mattersbefore USPTO since 2006. She also appeared pro se in the three OED RFI investigations
G2081, 02341, and G2505, and Complaint D2014-04, Amended Complaint D2014-04,
Complaint D2014-31, and Amended Complaint D2014-31.

7
18. Defendant one, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, is an agency of the
United States.
19. Defendant two, Michelle K. Lee (Lee), at all time relevant hereto was the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office, who issued the Final Order and Order Denying Requestfor Reconsideration
ofthe Amended Compliant D2014-31.
20. Defendant three, Sarah Harris (Harris), at all time relevant hereto was the principal
legal advisor to the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the
USPTO, who was coimsel for Michelle K. Lee for Amended Complaint D2014-31. Defendant
Harris is sued in her individual capacity.
21. Defendant four, William R. Covey (Covey), at all time relevant hereto wasthe deputy
General Counsel and Director at the OED, who submitted to the ALJ Complaint D2014-04,
Amended Complaint D2014-04, Complaint D2014-31, andAmended Complaint D2014-31.
22. Defendant five, Melinda M. DeAtley (DeAtley), at all time relevant hereto was the
duly appointed and acting associate solicitor for the OED and a federal officer who was counsel
for the OED Director in the two disciplinary proceedings of D2014-04, and D2014-31.
Defendant DeAtley is sued in her individual capacity.
23. Defendant six, Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel (Mendel), at all time relevant hereto was the
duly appointed and acting associate solicitor for the OED and a federal officer, who was counsel
for the OED Director in the two disciplinary proceedings of D2014-04, and D2014-31.
Defendant Mendel is sued in her individual capacity.

24. Defendant seven, Jennifer A. Harchick (Harchick), at all time relevant hereto was the
duly appointed and acting staff attorneys for the OED and a federal officer whose duties include
undertaking RFI investigations of G2341, and G2505, on the part of the OED. Defendant
Harchick is sued in her individual capacity.
Background
25. A copy of SHOW CAUSE presented at the hearing of 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 of this second
OED seal,the allegedmisconductcited in Complaint D2014-04 was time-barred by ALJ.
^ RECeiVcU
p RtCttVED RECEIVED RECEIVED RECEIVED ^
mar 26 20t3 ftPR 16 2013 MAY 03 2013 ^^fICEOFENKOlUMEI^H
RECEIVED
t f ;!ai2
26. After Dr. Shia fully complied with SHOW CAUSE, She was served with the first RFI
investigation G2081. Then, EXCLUSION ORDER excluded her from being a U.S.
representative. The exclusion decision was immediately mailed to Dr. Shia's around 230 foreign
clients, and also posted online at TSDR till today. No evidence against Dr. Shia was presented
with EXCLUSION ORDER, except for a conclusion Dr. Shia committed UPL, and violated PTO
rules by entering her clients' electronic signatures, which was information non-volimtarily
released under SHOW CAUSE. EXCLUSION ORDER contains a single blue-ink
Commissioner's signature,different from her official signatureon a trademark certificate.
27. On September 9, 2013, Dr. Shia sent her first Congressional Inquiry, via
Congressman BlakeFarenthold, to the Department of Commerce-USPTO, questioning her rights
of a U.S. representative unduly deprived. In less than two months, she was retaliated with
Complaint D2014-04. ComplaintD2014-04 of November 8, 2013 with a 30-dayperiod was sent
out on Friday, afternoon, and received about two weeks before Thanksgiving, 2013. Complaint
D2014-04 successfully stayed a response due from the Department of Commerce-USPTO, as a
response would interfere with a then outstanding Complaint D2014-04. After Complaint D2014-
04 was time-barred by ALJ, Amended Complaint D2014-04 followed, and was coupled with a
second OED RFI disciplinary investigation G2341.
28. Compliant D2014-31 was later initiated, followed by Amended Complaint thereof.
Amended Complaint D2014-04 was consolidated Amended Complaint D2014-31 to become
ConsolidatedAmended Complaints. On October 6, 2014, at the hearing, the ALJ granted the
OED Director's automatic dropping of Amended Complaint D2014-04. Amended Complaint
D2014-31 was later, again, coupled with a third OED RFI disciplinary investigation G2505.
29. In the proceeding D2014-04, there are 90 court documents presented before ALJ,
which were contained in one folder, "B", "Administrative D2014-04". In the proceeding D2014-
31, there are 57 documents. In total, there are 147 court documents in the two proceedings. The
one single court document, Complaint D2014-31, had 458 paragraphs in 64 pages to be answered
by Dr. Shia within 30-day. So did Amended Complaint D2014-31. After ALJ issued Initial
Decision, the 147 documents were transmitted to PTO, contained in the PTO official record of
10
"Shia record" under 10 sub-folders of "A" to "J". The 147 documents do not include a third OED
RFI investigation of File G2505, nor do Dr. Shia's Appeal to Initial Decision, Reply Briefand
Requestfor Consideration, as they were submitted after Initial Decision was issued. As oftoday,
Dr. Shia's Congressional Inquires sentin October 2013 to the Department of Commerce-USPTO
are still stayedby the outstanding Amended Complaint D2014-31.
30. Dr. Shia is no attorney; nor is she a native speaker of English. The folder "G" of
"OED Director's Proposed Exhibits" alone is estimated 7m high (printed in single-page), which
mcludes PTO internal and external documents of Dr. Shia's online submission since 2006. The
average attorney fee is $300 an hour for reviewing a tmckload of government exhibits. Under
eachdocument is her endlessworryand topless pressure, like livingwith a time bomb.
31. Right before the hearing was to be held at Washington, DC, The OED Director's
Motion of Objection to Respondent's Exhibits was emailed from an OED staffaround 3:30 PM
on September 26, 2014, the last date permitted bythe ALJ to file an objection. Dr. Shia had only
about an hour to drive back to her computer to review the motion and to respond by 5 pm, in
order to safeguard her exhibits for the hearing. While preparing forAppeal to Initial Decision to
f
meet the deadline, she missed out a lifetime opportunity to be present for her family. She could
not go out of the country, either, because emailing from foreign countries may not be received on
time by ALJ. She checked dozens of emails received in SPAM, as the first email from Mendel
was collected in SPAM. Initial Decision with a limited 30-days to appeal was emailed only; no
paper version was sent. Initial Decision was not published for, at least, not redacting non-party
personal information. The ALJ failed to state in Initial Decision his jurisdiction, if any.
11
32. On March 4, 2016, the USPTO Director issued Final Order for Amended Complaint
D2014-31, affirming Initial Decision. LikeInitial Decision, Final Order did not redact non-party
identifiable personal information. Final Order was specified with a 30-day reply time, but was
NOT sent by certified mails. On the contrary, after more than 1-yearstatutory imitations expired,
Harchick sent a notice by certified mails, trivially informing Dr. Shia in the last sentence of the
closing of the investigation G2505. This G2505 notice arrived on Feb. 8,2016, the Chinese New
Year (it was true Dr. Shia was out of town on the Chinese New Year in 2014). Should Dr. Shia
failed to sign on the returned receipt of the certified G2505 notice, would Final Order with a 30-
day response period be sent earlier during Dr. Shia's presumed absence? How did Harchick know
the most current status of Amended Complaint D2014-31, as stated in her G2505 notice? Did
Lee, Harris, DeAtley, and Mendel, who were in charge of the proceeding D2014-31, release Dr.
Shia's personal and confidential information to Harchick, who was in charge of a separate
investigation of G2505?
33. SHOW CAUSE came from a federal government agency, USPTO. When Dr. Shia
released her clients' authorized documents in proof of her innocence, she completely trusted
PTO. But, she was served with an OED investigation G2081, which included her coerced
submission to SHOW CAUSE as evidence against her. If she wasnot fit for a U.S. representative
since 2006, why did USPTO not tell her until 2012? Back in 2012, she believed what was stated
in SHOW CAUSE. She also believed in the Commissioner's authority under 35 U.S.C.
3(b)(a)(A) to exclude her. Upon receiving EXLCUSION ORDER, she sent certified mail on
March 12,2013 of her fist Petition to Exclusion Orderto the address specified on EXCLUSION
ORDER, as there was never a file No. identified thereon. Her first petition mailed on March 12,
12
2013 (not on March 19,2013 as the USPTO official record showed) was not published at TSDR
for public review for lack of a FileNo.
34. She did not know the meaning of her exclusion "effective immediately" during the
two-month petition period, xmtil her foreign clients called "What did you do???" She trusted a
federal government agency. But, she felt she was executed by USPTO with a sward of
EXCLUSION ORDER in front of her foreign clients. On April 10 and April 11,Dr. Shiare-
filed via TEAS two repeated petitions imder two trademark applications, which were
unmediately published at TSDR for public review. She waited day after day to receive ajustified
response to her three repeated Petition to Exclusion Order. No response. Six months later, she
filed Congressional Inquiries to the Department ofCommerce-USPTO. In less than two months,
she was served with Complaint D2014-04, followed by Complaint D2014-31, and two more
OED RFI mvestigations, G2341 and G2505. Would her pain be much lesser, had
EXCLUSIONORDER been a steel sword, which would be a quick and fast one-time pam?
35. For alleged violations that could not exist in any way, by law and by fact. Dr. Shia
was leashed by her patent agent license inthe hands ofthe OED, and imprisoned ather residence
in an invisible disciplinary cage by OED. PTO officers and officials did not injure her body by
contact. They just pulled her out of that mvisible cage by the leash imder their unbridled
disciplinary authority, repeatedly interrogated her, intimidated her, and humiliated her and even
her family, atthe hearing with illegally obtamed evidence, and by serving complaints containing
hundreds of questions, overloaded simultaneously with OED RFI investigations, invading her
and her family's privacy by searching IP addresses. She hopelessly witness PTO invading her
family's privacy. She did not know when she could stop living in fear and imder threats. PTO
13
officers and officials were all paid for the job. Even if certain officers (two OED staff attorneys
in charge of the OED G2081) and officials (the former USPTO Director and the former
Commissioner) left, others filled in. It was very difficult for her to understand all the legal
documents, let alone responding properly on time. It took a clear mind, sufficient energy, a lot of
time, and most importantly, relevant legal knowledge to respond properly within a specified time
period. PTO officers and officials were all attorneys familiar with the administrative law and
PTO rules. She was alone by herself. Her life changed; even her family's life was affected. If she
yields, she is definitely not the first nor the last one who yields. A big evil would grow to a giant
evil to torture more umocent people like her, making her a part of the giant evil. An unfavorable
disciplinary decision would also make her life impossible to move on, either as a patent agent or
in legal education. She had a memory breakdown at the hearing. She did not remember exactly
why she appeared before the ALJ, except for repeating "They did illegal things. I am innocent."
36. In Consolidated Amended Complaints, presented before ALJ until October 6, 2014,
in Amended Complaint of D2014-31, and in OED investigations G2081, G2341, and G2505,
Defendants 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 reasons set forth below.
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 due
process and rights against self-incrimination;
14
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 coercion
by SHOWCAUSE; in particular,
i) Relying on mformation illegally obtained from SHOW CAUSE as evidence for
alleged charges;
ii) Exceeding Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to

exclude Dr. Shia as a U.S. representative;
iii) Misrepresenting Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to

have an immediate effect on the date EXCLUSION ORDER was issued, ratifying the
online posting and dissemination ofDr. Shia's exclusion to thepublic;
iv) Absenting evidence of violation, alleging violation of PTO procedural rules of

TMEP 602 and 608.01, which only govern the conduct ofthe proceedings, not the
conduct ofpractitioners; and
v) Misrepresenting 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) with only the provision of 37 C.F.R.

2.193(c)(1), and leaving out 2.193(c)(2), which is indispensably connected to its
counterpart 2.193(c)(1) with a Boolean operator "or";
c) Ratifying as a basis MEMORANDUM A^rD ORDER (MEMO AND OEDER) of

December 27,2013, issued by the acting chiefofstaff, Office ofPolicy and Intemational Affairs,
PTO, on behalf ofCommissioner for Patents, Secretary ofCommerce for Intellectual Proper and
Director of USPTO, which affirmed EXCLUSION ORDER, violating Dr. Shia's Fourth
15
Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure of documents non-voluntarily submitted
under SHOW CAUSE and retained by EXCLUSION ORDER, and Fifth Amendment rights to
dueprocess; MEMO AND ORDER also violated Dr. Shia's FifthAmendment due process
i) by misrepresenting the official filing date March 12,2013 of Dr. Shia's firstpetition
mailed by U.S. post office certified mails as March 19,2013, thereby making MEMO
AND ORDER non-responsive to Dr. Shia's Petition to EXCLUSION ORDER, or
alternatively, nullifying the effectof MEMO AND ORDER, ifany; and
ii) by citing, as evidence against Dr. Shia, phone interviews initiated by PTO
examining attorneys regarding proposed Examiner's Amendment to expedite the
examination of applications, thereby self-incriminatmg PTO attorneys who aided and
abet Dr. Shia into the alleged UPL by answering to the USPTO-initiated calls;
d) Initiatingwithout grounds Complaintand Amended Complaint of D2014-04;
e) Initiatmg withoutgrounds Complaint and theAmended Complaint of D2014-31;
f) Interfering with the due administration ofjustice by destruction of admitted evidence in
the PTO official record of "Shia Record";
g) Designing TEAS to systematically remove the original electronic signatures without
grounds, whenever a filled-in file is uploaded backto TEAS, and charging Dr. ShiaUPL, based
on her recovering the erased electronic signatures;
h) TEAS's sporadic removing the street names from Dr. Shia's clients' correspondence
without grounds, and charging Dr. Shia UPL, based onherrecovering the erased street names;
16
i) Preempting the State in regulation ofpractice oflaw by charging Dr. Shia with UPL
and with aiding UPL, based on her online activities at TEAS;
j) Serving an internet vendor with a misrepresented subpoena containing a falsified civil

case title "OED, USPTO v. Dr. Bang-er Shia", and a civil case No. "D2014-31" at the Eastem
District of Arkansas;
k) Searching IP addresses oftrademark filmgs associated with Dr. Shia and her family;
1) Discriminating and intentional mvading Dr. Shia's family's privacy by leaving her
family spersonal identifiable mformation not redacted in IP addresses search results;
m) Construing the legal binding between Dr. Shia and her clients as matters within the
jurisdiction ofUSPTO, inconsistent with the Law ofContract and the authority of35 U.S.C 2.
n) Excluding without grounds from consideration Dr. Shia's hearing testunony ofher
legal authority to bind her clients;
o) Initiating an investigation G2505 to scrutinize Dr. Shia hearing testimony, which was
otherwise excluded from consideration in Amended Complaint D2014-31;
p) Excluding without grounds from consideration. Dr. Shia's admitted evidence of post-
hearing documents supporting her hearing testunony; and
q) Initiating an investigation G2505 to scrutinize admitted evidence of Dr. Shia's post-

hearing documents, which were otherwise excluded from consideration in Amended Complaint
D2014-31.
17
Fact
Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
37. SHOW CAUSE was admitted into evidence at the hearing on October 6-10, 2014,
which was open to the public due to Dr. Shia's voluntary waiver of her privacy.
38. SHOW CAUSE stated
"The circumstances suggest that you are preparing trademark filings to be submitted to
the USPTO or are otherwise acting on behalf of applicants in connection 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 the USPTO
should not cease use of your contact information for correspondence and prohibit
participation by you as a correspondent or domestic representative in any 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 relating to trademark matters."
39. 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, "where the answers might incriminate [the
witness] in future criminal proceedings." Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70,77 (1973).
40. SHOW CAUSE compelled Dr. Shia in an administrative proceeding to be a witness
against herself in defense of an alleged charge of UPL.
41. UPL is a 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 Bar of Texas, 431 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. Civ. App. Tyler 1968, writ ref d n.r.e.)
18
42. Dr. Shia's answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future criminal
proceedmg in Texas for a criminal charge of UPL.
43. SHOW CAUSE violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-
incrimination because her answer to SHOW CAUSE might incriminate herself in a future
criminal proceeding in Texas.
44. By ratifymg SHOW CAUSE as a basis, Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth
AmendmentPrivilege against self-incrimination.
Violation ofDue Process: Lack ofEvidence of Violation of USPTO Procedural Rules
45) EXCLUSION ORDER was admitted into evidence at the hearing. Mendel stipulated
on October 9, 2014 the single blue-mk signature was a genuine signature of the former
Commissioner. EXCLUSION ORDER stated
"This letter is to notify you that effective immediately, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) is excluding you fi'om participating as a U.S. representative
in any trademark matters before the USPTO....a sufficient and reasonable basis exists to
conclude that you are engaging 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 in such matters... If you choose to appeal, the
petition must be filed within two months of this letter's mailing date. See 37 CF R
2.146(d)."
46) The right of a domestic representative or correspondent is authorized under TMEP

1604.14,15 U.S.C. 1058(f), 37 C.F.R. 2.18(c).
Atall time relevant, 37C.F.R. 2.18(c), provided
19
If an application, registration or proceeding is not being prosecuted by an attorney but a

domestic representative has been appointed, the Office will send correspondence to the
domestic representative, unless the applicant, registrant or party designates in writing
another correspondence address.
47) At all time relevant, 15 U.S.C. 1058(59, provided
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 notices or process in
proceedings affecting the mark...
(emphasis added)
48) Dr. Shia was entitled to the right of a domestic representative or correspondent for
foreign clients.
49) Commissioner did not know TEAS forms can be downloaded into an electronic file,
attached to an email, sent from foreign countries to Dr. Shia, and uploaded back to TEAS for
submission. The mere speculative argument in EXCLUSION ORDER had no probative 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 that you are completing, signing, and submitting these filings yourself"
(emphasis added)
50) The Fifth Amendment requires that "due process of law" be part of any proceeding
that denies a citizen "life, liberty or property".
51) Violation of Fifth Amendment due process, EXCLUSION ORDER deprived Dr. Shia
of the right of a domestic representative in the absence of evidence for the alleged UPL.
20
52) Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by endorsing
EXCLUSION ORDER as a basis.
Violation ofDue Process: EXCLUSION ORDER Issued inNoncompliance with 35 U.S.C. 32
53) At all time relevant, 35 U.S.C. 32, "Suspension orExclusion from Practice", provided
"The Director may, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend or exclude, either
generally or in any particular case, from further practice before the Patent and Trademark
Office,... (emphasis added)
54) 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
licensed practitioners (not non-attorneys) from practice.
55) A person withan address in theUnited States canserve as a U.S. representative.
56) A non-attorney U.S. representative does notpractice (trademark) lawbefore USPTO.
57) 35 U.S.C. 32 is notapplicable to non-attorney U.S. representatives, like Dr. Shia
58) No one, noteven USPTO Director, is authorized under 35 U.S.C. 32to exclude Dr.
Shia from being a U.S. representative.
59) EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. 32.
60) Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
ratifying as a basis EXCLUSION ORDER, noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. 32.
21
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance With 35 U.S,C, (3)(b)(2)(A)
61) EXCLUSION ORDER was issued under the authority of 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
62) At all time relevant, 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A), provided
"...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 OfRce that affect the administration of patent and
trademark operations, respectively..."
63) An agency's determination of the scope of its own authority is not entitled to
Chevron deference. Borlem S.A. Empreedimentos Industrials v. United States, 913 F.2d 933, 937
(Fed. Cir. 1990).
64) Commissioner was not authorized to interpret her authority to manage the
administrative activities under 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A) to exclude a person from being a U.S.
representative, which even exceeded the PTO Director's right to exclude under 35 U.S.C. 32.
65) Therefore, EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights of due
process, among other things, for noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
66) Defendants also violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights of due process for
ratifying EXCLUSION ORDER, thereby noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. (3)(b)(2)(A).
Violation ofDue Process: Right DeprivedbeforeBeing Given an Opportunity to be Heard
67) The "root requirement" of the Due Process Clause is an individual be given an
opportunity to be heard before she is deprived of any significant property interest. Fuentes v.
22
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 requirement of due process is the opportunity
to be heard "at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner").
68) SHOW CAUSE of January 23, 2012 failed to be an opportunity for Dr. Shia to be
heard of a violation before being excluded, for reasons set forth below:
i) SHOW CAUSE was not issued at a meaningfultime 6 years after Dr. Shia filed papers;
ii) SHOW CAUSE was not issued in a meaningful manner because it did not inform Dr.
Shia of a defect in trademark papers she filed, if any; and
iii) SHOW CAUSE itself violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights of Fourth and Fiftii
Amendments.
69) 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.
70) Absent a meaningful notice issued at a meaningful time, EXCLUSION ORDER
violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment due process rights by depriving her the right of a U. S.
representative.
71) Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by ratifying
EXCLUSION ORDER, which deprived Dr. Shia of the right of a U.S. representative before
giving her an opportunity to be heard.
23
72) Defendants further violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process by
ratifying EXCLUSION ORDER'S immediate effect onthe date it was issued.
Violation ofDue Process:Noncompliant with 37 C.F.R, 11.1and 11,505
73) 37 C.F.R. 11.505, Unauthorized Practice ofLaw,^ provided

Apractitioner shall not practice law inajurisdiction inviolation ofthe regulation ofthe
legal profession in that jurisdiction, or assistanother in doing so.
(emphasis added)
74) Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 11.49, in a disciplinary proceeding, the OED Director shall
havethe burdenof proving the violation by clearand convincing evidence.
75) Defendants failed to prove Dr. Shia was a "practitioner", who "practiced (trademark)
law" while accessmg TEAS, which violated theTexas law, as reqxiired by37 C.F.R. 11.505.
76) Defendants failed to prove with evidence, in statutory or cise law, Dr. Shia's online
activities at TEAS constitutes "practicing law" in Texas, as required by 37 C.F.R. 11.505.
77) Without evidence. Defendants' charge ofUPL is in violation of 37C.F.R. 11.505.
78) Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.505.
79) Without supporting evidence, by charging Dr. Shia with UPL, Defendants essentially
defined activities at TEAS constitutes "practicing law", which preempts Texas in regulation of
practice of (trademark) law.
*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 Bar Association (ABA),
versions of which have been adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia. 50 FR 5158 (Feb. 6,
1985).
24
80) Preempting the State ofTexas in regulation ofpractice oflaw is not permitted by 37
C.F.R. 11.1. Defendants therefore violated 37C.F.R. 11.1.
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliant with 37C,F,R. 10,1 and10,47
82) At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R. 10.47, Aiding unauthorized practice oflaw, provided
(a) Apractitioner shall not aid anon-practitioner in the unauthorized practice oflaw
before the Office.
(b) Apractitioner shall not aid asuspended or excluded practitioner in the practice of
law before the Office.
(c) Apractitioner shall not aid anon-lawyer in the unauthorized practice oflaw.
83) Defendants failed to prove with convincing evidence Dr. Shia was a "practitioner"
who aid, presumably, her clients in "practicing law", as required by 37 C.F.R. 10.47.
84) 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 law",
as required by 37 C.F.R. 10.47.
85) Lack ofevidence. Defendants charged Dr. Shia with aiding UPL, in violation of 37
C.F.R. 10.47.
86) Defendants thus violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment rights to due process for
25
87) Lack of evidence in Texas law. Defendants charged Dr. Shia of aiding UPL, which
preempts Texas in regulation of practice of (trademark) law, thereby noncompliant with 37
CF.R. 10.1,
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. lL22(i) and 11.32
89) At all time relevant, 37 C.F.R. 11.22(i) provided the OED Director shall terminate
an investigation and decline to refer a matter to the Conmiittee on Discipline if the OED Director
determines that:
(1) The information or evidence is unfounded;

(2) The information or evidence relates to matters not within the jurisdiction of the
Office;
(3) As a matter of law, the conduct about which information or evidence has been
obtained does not constitute grounds for discipline, even if the conduct may involve a
legal dispute; or
(4) The available evidence is insufficient to conclude that there is probable cause to
believe that grounds exist for discipline.
90) At all time relevant. 37 C.F.R. 11.32, Instituting a disciplinary proceeding, provided
If after conducting an investigation under 11.22(a), the OED Director is of the opinion
that grounds exist for discipline under 11.19(b), the OED Director, after complying
where necessary with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558(c), may convene a meeting of a
panel of the Conmiittee on Discipline. If convened, the panel of the Conmiittee on
Discipline shall then determine as specified in 11.23(b) whetfier there is probable cause
to bring disciplinary charges. If the panel of the Committee on Discipline determines that
probable cause exists to bring charges, the OED Director may institute a disciplinary
proceeding by filing a complaint under 11.34.
26
91) 37 C.F.R. 11.32 specifically requires the OED Director not to form an opinion that
ground exists for disciplme until after conducting an investigation under 37 C.F.R. 11.22(a).
And, no disciplinary proceeding shall be instituted by filing a complaint imder 11.34, unless
probable cause is determined to exist to bring charges under 11.19(b).
92) Nevertheless, at the hearing, Mendel asked Dr. Shia for documents ofher authority to
bind herclients, evidencing the OED Director's noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.32.
93) Evidence shows the OED Director first moved Dr. Shia to testify m 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 with 37
C.F.R. 11.32.
94) Defendants therefore violated Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights to due process of law
for noncompliance with 37 C.F.R. 11.32.
Fourth Amendment Right against Unreasonable Search and Seizure
95) The Fourth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution provides that the right ofthe 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 right
to privacy and freedom from arbitrary governmental mtrusions.
96) SHOW CAUSE came with no evidence supporting the alleged UPL; it violated Dr.
Shia's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches into the privileged privacy
between her and her foreign clients.
27
97) SHOW CAUSE also violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable, coerced seizure of authorization documents entrusted by Dr. Shia's clients.
98) EXCLUSION ORDER violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right against
unreasonable seizure by retaining the coerced submission from SHOW CAUSE.
99) By ratifying SHOW CAUSE and EXCLUSION ORDER, Defendants violated Dr.
Shia's Fourth Amendmentright ofprivacy between her and her clients.
100) Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fourth Amendment right to personal privacy against
unreasonable searches and seizure by searching IP addresses targeting Dr. Shia.
101) 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.
Violation ofDueProcess:Misrepresenting "Electronic"Signatures with "written"Signatures
102) Defendants misrepresented "electronic signature" with "(written) signature".
103) TEAS technology did NOT permit a graphical, pictorial signature (as opposed to
electronic signatures entered from a keyboard).
Fifth Amendment Due Process: Tampering withAdmittedEvidence and Filing Dates
104) On October 10, 2014, Dr. Shia's exhibits A-Z were received in the entirety at the
hearing and admitted into evidence by the ALJ.
28
105) Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of SHOW CAUSE, i.e.
Respondent's Exhibit C1-C3, and D1-D3, by removing it from the folder "I" of "Respondent's
Proposed Exhibits";
106) Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of SHOW CAUSE, i.e. Joint
Exhibit #3, by removing it fi*om the folder "JointExhibits";
107) Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of To-Ts containing different
OED seals by replacing them with another set of exhibits containing different materials
submitted on different dates before ALJ;
108) Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of exhibits A-R by removing
them from the folder "I" of "Respondent's ProposedExhibits";
109) Defendants tampered and nullified admitted evidence of exhibits S-Z, timely
submitted on August 13, 2014 by misrepresenting folder "I" of "Respondent's Proposed
Exhibits" as "submitted on September 22,2014";
110) 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 bmd her clients). The folder containing Dr. Shia's post-hearing documents was
misleadingly marked as "submittedafter the hearing".
111) Defendants tampered and nullified the timely filing date July 3, 2016 of Dr. Shia's
Reply Brief by postdating it to an expired untimely filing date of July 6,2016.
29
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)
112) USPTO's authority of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) must be consistent with law, without
creating new law or effecting a change in law. The provisions of 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(A) and
(2)(b)(2)(D) are exclusive of each other; the former, applicable to the conduct of "proceedings",
and the latter, the conduct of "practitioners".
35U.S.C. 2 (b)(2) provides PTO may establishregulations, not inconsistent with law, which
(A) shall govern the conduct ofproceedmgs m the Office;....
(D) maygovern the recognition and conduct of agents, attorneys, or otherpersons
representing applicants or other parties before the Office,...;
35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2): must be consist^with law

35 U.S.C. (2)05PX^ 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(D)
govern govern
T
proceedings (non-human beings) practitioners (living persons)
No evidence of violation
113) The rules cited by Defendants (including 37 C.F.R. 2.17(c)(l)-(2), and 2.193(a),
(c), (e)(1), and TMEP 601, 608.01, and 611.06), were made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A) to
regulate the conduct of proceedmgs (e.g. in registering a trademark), not applicable to Dr. Shia.
114)No notice of violation of PTO procedural rules made under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(A)
existed for any applications associated with Dr. Shia.
115) Defendants misapplied procedural rules to govern the conduct of Dr. Shia,
noncompliant with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2), which requires consistence with law.
30
35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(^ 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2)(D)

USPT&s>iolating due process of law
proceedings (non-human beings) practitioners (living persons)
116) PTO's interpretation of its rule was not entitled to deference under Chevron v.
NRDC. Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7,2010)
117) PTO is not authorized to make substantive law, nor to create new law or effect
changes in the existing law.
118) 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) provided PTO may establish regulations, not inconsistent with
the law. But this authority 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). "A rule is 'substantive'
when it 'effects a change in existing law or policy' which 'affect[s] individual rights and
obligations." Def. Fund, v. Quigg, 932 F.2d 920,927 (Fed. Cir.1991).^
119) Defendants violated Dr. Shia's Fifth Amendment right to due process for
noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2).
Violation ofDue Process: Noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. 32 and 5 U.S.C. 558 (b)
120) Plaintiff Dr. Shia hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-119 of her
complaint as if fully set forth herein.
^SeeIntellectual Ventures II LLC 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) of the PatentAct Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d.
1345, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
31
121) Noncompliance with 35 U.S.C. (2)(b)(2) forfeits the jurisdiction USPTO would
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 statutory
purpose. 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
122)At all time relevant, 5 U.S.C. 558 (b) provided
A sanction may not be imposed or a substantive rule or order issued except within
jurisdiction delegated to the agencyand as authorizedby law.
123) Lack of thejurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 32, USPTO Director's Final Order of an
exclusion decision was issued in violation of 5 U.S.C. 558 (b).
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation against Self-incrimination)
124) Plaintiff Dr. Shia hereby incorporates by reference her responses to paragraphs 1-
123 of her complamt as if fully set forth herein.
125) By means of its action recited above, the USPTO, through the individual actions of
Lee, Harris, Covey, DeAtley, Mendel, and Harchick violated and continue to violate Dr. Shia's
rights against self-incrimination protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution regarding
the alleged charges and misconducts recited in Consolidated Amended Complaints and in the
outstanding Amended Complaint D2014-31.
126) The actions of the USPTO, Lee, Harris, Covey, DeAtley, Mendel, and Harchick
entitle Dr. Shia to both injunctive and monetary relief, which is requested by the Court.
32
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of Due Process)
126of her complaint as if fullyset forth herein.
128) By means ofits action recited above, the USPTO, through the individual actions of
Lee, Harris, Covey, DeAtley, Mendel, and Harchick violated and continued to violate Dr. Shia's
rights to due process oflaw safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment ofthe Constitution regarding
the alleged charges and misconducts recited in Consolidated Amended Complaints and in
outstanding Amended Complaint D2014-31.
entitle Dr. Shia to both injunctive and monetary relief, which is requested bythe Court.
TmRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Unreasonable Search and Seizure)
130) PlaintiffDr. Shia hereby incorporates by reference her responses to paragraphs 1-

129 of her complaint as if fully set forth herein.
131) By means of its action recited above, the USPTO, through the individual actions of
Lee, Harris, Covey, DeAtley, Mendel, and Harchick violated and continued to violate Dr. Shia's
rights of privacy against unreasonable search into personal privacy, family privacy and privacy
with her foreign clients, and IP addresses, against unreasonable seizure of authorization
documents submitted under coercion and relied on by Defendants, and IP address search results,
safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution regardmg the alleged charges and
33
misconducts recited in Consolidated Amended Complaints and in outstanding Amended

Complaint D2014-31.
entitle Dr. Shiato bothinjunctive andmonetary relief, which is requested bythe Court.
DAMAGES
132of her complaint as if fully set forth herein.
134) The conduct of the individual Defendants in violation of Dr. Shia's Constitutional
rights entitles Dr. Shia to damages caused thereby, pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents oftheFederalBureau ofNarcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
135) Plaintiff Dr. Shia has been damaged as a result of the Defendants' unlawful acts in
an amount to be determined at trial, but in no event less than $4,700,000.
136) Further pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents ofthe Federal Burea of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228 (1979), Plaintiff Dr. Shia is
entitled to damages includmg 1) economic damages, 2) compensatory damages, 3) court costs,
and 4) anyotherreliefthe court maydeemjust and proper.
INJUNCTION/T.R.O.
137) PlaintiffDr. Shiahereby incorporates byreference her responses to paragraphs 1-
136 ofher complaint as if fully set forth herein.
34
138) The enforcement of the charges of violations of disciplinary rules that violate Dr.
Shia's Constitutional rights as presented herein, is itself unconstitutional. If such action is not
enjoined. Dr. Shia will suffer immediate and irreparable harm through, among other things, loss
of her license as a patent agent, loss of reputation, loss of clients, loss of time, and loss of
income. Dr. Shia asks this Court to enjoin Defendants on a preliminary and permanent basis
from the enforcement of the charges of violations of disciplinary rules based in whole or in part
upon Final Order ofAmended Complaint D2014-31 that violate Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights.
139) Dr. Shia has no other remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, PlaintiffDr. Shia prays unto the court for judgment follows:
1. An award of economic and compensatory damagesagainst the individual Defendants;
2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction from the enforcement of the charges of
violations of disciplinary rules as recited in USPTO Director's Final Order of Amended
ComplaintD2014-31 that that violate Dr. Shia's Constitutional rights.
3. An award of reasonable cost of airfare, rental vehicle, food and lodging incurred
during the five-day hearing held at Washington, DC, paper and printing fees, and postal services
fees; and
4. For such other and fiirther relief as the court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a trial by jury is demanded
in this action of all issues so triable.
35
Respectfully submitted,
Dr. Bang-er Shia
102 LINDENCREST CT.,
SUGAR LAND, TX 77479-5201
Date: August 17, 2016
36
united states district court

EAOTERN DISTRICT OFVBMGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Bang-er Shia
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No.
United States Patent and Trademark Office,
Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris. William R. Covey,
Melinda M. DeAtiey, Elizabeth Ullmer Mendel, Jennifer A. Harchick
Defendant
CERTIFICATION
I declare under penalty of peotny that:

No attorney has prepared, or assisted in tiie preparation ofthis document.
IV /I.
Pait/<
afpf>SeVi (Printor TVpc)
Name ofto&Pait^
i ^-
Signatiire of
Exectttedon: g/ (Pate)
OR
(NameofAttorney)
(AddressofAttorn^)
(Telephone Number ofAttorney)

Prepared, orassisted inthepreparation of,this document
(Name ofPro Party(Printor Type)
Signature ofiVoSe Party
Executed on: (Date)

Banger Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et. Al.

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Banger Shia v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, Michelle K. Lee, Sarah Harris, William Covey, Et. Al.

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 1:16-cv-01051-AJT-MSN Document 1 Filed 08/17/16 Page 1 of 37 PageID# 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK CASE NO. lOBl' ([TC-

and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Director of the USPTO

Office of General Counsel for USPTO

Office for Enrollment and Discipline

ELIZABETH ULLMER MENDEL

sent to the Department of Commerce-United States Patentand Trademark Office(USPTO).

domestic representative or correspondent (U.S. representative) for foreign trademark clients

in whole or in part,on alleged violations of PTO disciplinary rules in disciplinary proceedings, in

particular, in Amended Complaint of the proceeding of D2014-31, conducted by the Office of

and privacy against unreasonable searchand seizure, and privilege againstself-incrimination.

3. Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceeding of D2014-31 commenced on July

Congressional Inquiries submitted to the Department of Commerce-USPTO regarding her rights

activities at USPTO Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

2.193(c), which was misrepresented by Defendants by missing out 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c)(2). 37

was no excuse to exempt Dr. Shia from a charge of UPL.

registration oftrademarks), not governing the conduct of the "practitioners".

Order Denying Requestfor Reconsideration.

13. Evidence existed of Defendants' selective enforcement targeting Dr. Shia.

IP addresses searched by an internet vendor showed submission of three applications, of which

consolidated Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceeding D2014-04 {Amended Complaint

D2014-04) and Amended Complaint of the disciplinary proceedmg D2014-31 (Amended

Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Jurisdiction and Venue

hasjurisdictionofthis action pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Complaint D2014-31, and Amended Complaint D2014-31.

ofthe Amended Compliant D2014-31.

Harris is sued in her individual capacity.

Amended Complaint D2014-04, Complaint D2014-31, andAmended Complaint D2014-31.

Defendant DeAtley is sued in her individual capacity.

Defendant Mendel is sued in her individual capacity.

Harchick is sued in her individual capacity.

OED seal,the allegedmisconductcited in Complaint D2014-04 was time-barred by ALJ.

released under SHOW CAUSE. EXCLUSION ORDER contains a single blue-ink

Commissioner's signature,different from her official signatureon a trademark certificate.

Congressman BlakeFarenthold, to the Department of Commerce-USPTO, questioning her rights

Complaint D2014-04. ComplaintD2014-04 of November 8, 2013 with a 30-dayperiod was sent

D2014-04 successfully stayed a response due from the Department of Commerce-USPTO, as a

second OED RFI disciplinary investigation G2341.

Amended Complaint D2014-04 was consolidated Amended Complaint D2014-31 to become

OED Director's automatic dropping of Amended Complaint D2014-04. Amended Complaint

are still stayedby the outstanding Amended Complaint D2014-31.

eachdocument is her endlessworryand topless pressure, like livingwith a time bomb.

self-incrimination, for reasons set forth below.

process and rights against self-incrimination;

i) Relying on mformation illegally obtained from SHOW CAUSE as evidence for

ii) Exceeding Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to

iii) Misrepresenting Commissioner's authority vested under 35 U.S.C. 3(b)(2)(A) to

iv) Absenting evidence of violation, alleging violation of PTO procedural rules of

v) Misrepresenting 37 C.F.R. 2.193(c) with only the provision of 37 C.F.R.

c) Ratifying as a basis MEMORANDUM A^rD ORDER (MEMO AND OEDER) of

Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure of documents non-voluntarily submitted

AND ORDER non-responsive to Dr. Shia's Petition to EXCLUSION ORDER, or

alternatively, nullifying the effectof MEMO AND ORDER, ifany; and

examining attorneys regarding proposed Examiner's Amendment to expedite the

examination of applications, thereby self-incriminatmg PTO attorneys who aided and

d) Initiatingwithout grounds Complaintand Amended Complaint of D2014-04;

e) Initiatmg withoutgrounds Complaint and theAmended Complaint of D2014-31;

f) Interfering with the due administration ofjustice by destruction of admitted evidence in

the PTO official record of "Shia Record";

g) Designing TEAS to systematically remove the original electronic signatures without