USPTO recently announced that it had taken actions to cancel about 3100 patent applications based on falsified signatures of a registered patent agent, Yang Jie, which were made by a Delaware LLC, “Wang and King” (“W&K”).  A USPTO disciplinary Order against Yang Jie was made on February 2, 2024, noting that “Numerous patent documents bearing Respondent’s purported S-signature were filed with the USPTO, including numerous micro-entity certifications falsely asserting micro-entity status for the applicant…Respondent did not sign such documents, nor did she prepare or review them before they were filed with the USPTO.”

On August 25, 2023, a Show Cause Order was issued against various patent applicants.  USPTO determined in a subsequent Final Order – Imposition of Sanctions (“Final Order”) that W&K’s activities constituted “a pattern of activity which is egregious in the magnitude of harm to the administrative process, in regards to both time and expense.  One or more persons affiliated with W&K intended to deceive the USPTO into believing the submissions were proper.”  USPTO issued a bulletin on this termination order on October 2, 2024.

Yang Jie is a registered patent agent (Registration Number 77,665) based in Chicago, Illinois.  She was registered as a patent agent on December 4, 2018. Yang Jie is a common Chinese name, making it difficult to confirm the nature of her work, location, or behavior.  She appears to work at Flener IP & Business Law in Chicago, Illinois. According to the Illinois State Bar registry, the firm does not carry malpractice insurance. The Illinois State Bar also does not record any disciplinary actions against her. As far as I can tell, the USPTO has not published a list of the 3,100 patent applications affected by the Final Order.

W&K is a Delaware LLC, incorporated on June 3, 2014.   W&K does not appear to be listed as qualified to do business in New Jersey, where its principal Dr. Yu “Mark” Wang, operates.  It also operated a domain that listed itself as having a New York office, but it also does not appear to be registered in New York.  Its former website noted that it is an “IP law firm in New York, and provides patent prosecution and litigation service allover [sic] the world.” Again, this information was obtained through a brief search on corporate registries. There may be additional information available about W&K.

According to the Show Cause Order, Mark Wang “has never been licensed to practice law” by a bar of the United States (para. 14).  Oddly, there is no reference to any Chinese or foreign bar admission by Mark Wang.  Yang Jie claimed that “she has known Dr. Wang, who was an older student, since 2001, when they attended the same university in China…Dr. Wang was someone whom she trusted: she had known him for many years; he was married to a registered practitioner who went to the same college in China … and Dr. Wang had helped Respondent [Yang Jie] as a trusted friend and confidante through difficult times” (Para. 14).  The public documents suggest that Mark Wang may have been engaged in the unauthorized practice of law with his filings in the US and internationally.  However, there is no indication of a referral to local authorities to investigate this matter.  Given past USPTO practice, it is unlikely that, if warranted, there will be a referral to the Chinese bar for reciprocal actions.  Moreover, USPTO is unlikely to act regarding any of the patent applications that Dr. Wang may have been filing in markets outside of the United States, as it does not constitute actions occurring before the USPTO itself.

Using a falsified signature for a micro-enterprise filing suggests that an economic motive may have also involved subsidies for fraudulent applications.  As I detailed in my article “Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against Unethical IP Practitioners by the United States and China” (2022), the United States has had problems in the past with malevolent actors utilizing the names of lawyers without their authorization, as well as with filings made by non-existent lawyers or agents. These problems were especially acute when trademarks were incentivized by Chinese government subsidies.  These subsidies make it possible for an unscrupulous local “consultant” to make money for his client by utilizing generous subsidies that exceed the cost of the application.  Moreover, the lower the cost of the application, such as through a micro-entity designation, the more profit would likely remain to the intermediary consultant.

Subsidies for patent applications have diminished in recent years in favor of subsidies for patent grants or, indeed, none.  The Shenzhen government has stated that it will subsidize patent grants at $4,500 RMB per patent grant or approximately $321.00.  If each of these patents subject to this disciplinary action were filed in anticipation that it would receive such a grant, a total of roughly $1,000,000 in subsidy money alone may have been lost through the actions of Mark Wang et al.  Moreover, the inappropriate use of subsidies by Chinese applicants could render any Chinese consultant liable for damages in a civil action or action to recover the subsidy, as has occurred in at least one Chinese trademark case.

The failure of the USPTO record to disclose whether these patent applications originated from China and were subject to subsidies makes it challenging to place this disciplinary action in the broader scope of US-China IP relations.  These problems are also compounded by difficulties identifying the individuals involved in these activities.  As I noted in Congressional testimony last year, “Congress should direct the USPTO to require any applicants for patents or trademarks to disclose if they are receiving government subsidies or grants for the underlying R&D for the patent or the application itself.” I also noted in testimony in 2022 that “the US needs to address the problem of fraudulent, short-term or low-quality patent and trademark filings from China.  Many of these applications benefit from subsidies or grants.  Relying solely upon US attorney discipline will likely require closer cooperation with the Chinese government if there is cross-border malevolent activity.“  

Cases such as these also underscore the need for comprehensive approaches to deal with the high number of disciplinary actions brought by USPTO. One important component is education.  Academics should include IP ethics in their casebooks, clinics, and curricula, particularly if a high percentage of their students are from foreign countries who may be unfamiliar with USPTO’s often unique ethics rules.  In many cases, the parties disciplined by USPTO are practitioners without long experience in the United States. They would likely have benefited from coursework on IP legal ethics at a formative stage in their careers.