1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Visa Restrictions Limit Authorization To Practice Before Patent And Trademark Office

Visa Restrictions Limit Authorization To Practice Before Patent And Trademark Office

Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.21.06

There is no abuse of discretion in a Patent and Trademark Office denial of full registration to practice before the PTO to a nonimmigrant foreign individual, as full registration would have authorized that individual to do work in which she could not lawfully engage and would have been inconsistent with the terms of her visa, a Federal Circuit panel concludes in Catherine Lacavera v. Jon W. Dudas (No. 05-1204; February 6, 2006).

Lacavera, a Canadian citizen and nonimmigrant alien, began working in the United States as an attorney pursuant to a one year visa which permitted her only to prepare and prosecute patent applications at a New York law firm. Lacavera then successfully passed the patent bar examination but, because of legal restrictions imposed by her visa, was granted only limited recognition to practice before the PTO. Lacavera then challenged the PTO's decision to deny her full registration, initially before the PTO General Counsel and subsequently by filing suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Administrative Procedure Act. Following denial of Lacavera's motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of the PTO, Lacavera appeals.

The CAFC panel affirms. 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), the statute providing the PTO with authority to govern the conduct of proceedings before it and to govern the recognition and conduct of attorneys, is silent as to whether the PTO may consider visa restrictions in determining whether or not to grant recognition. However, the statute states that the PTO may require applicants to show that they are “possessed of the necessary qualifications to render to applicants” valuable service. It was reasonable for the PTO to enact regulations that limit an alien's ability to practice before it to those activities in which the alien may lawfully engage, and the PTO did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating the regulations in question.

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights