Miami patent attorney suspended from practicing law for three years
A Miami attorney has been suspended from practicing law for three years, according to a unanimous decision by the Florida Supreme Court on Monday.
If he still practices, John Faro has 30 days to close his law firm and begin the three-year suspension. He must also pay the Florida bar $2,898 for his investigation costs, according to Monday’s decision.
Faro was unavailable for comment on Wednesday. His Florida Bar file shows his office on Brickell Ave., but other websites show him practicing in Naples and Boca Raton.
Court documents show he is no stranger to discipline. Faro received a reprimand from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2013. The Florida Bar suspended him from practicing for 10 days in 1995 and reprimanded him in 2011.
The case for which Faro was suspended for three years stems from a complaint filed in 2018 by the Florida Bar and based on the USPTO’s eight-month suspension of his right to petition the federal office. patents. It was 20 years in the making, according to court documents.
It all started when a California-based customer contacted Faro in 2002 to appeal a rejected USPTO patent application for his electrotherapy device. Faro’s new application was denied and the USPTO declared the case discontinued in 2004, documents show. Faro claimed that he was never informed of this when he filed a motion to revive the patent application later that same year.
The request was again denied, and again Faro did not pursue the matter. He misled his clients about the status of the case, the complaint states.
The request received its third and final rejection and Faro was informed of a two-month deadline to file an appeal. This notice was sent to his address registered with the Florida Bar, the complaint states.
Another Notice of Abandonment of Application was issued in August 2009, but apparently customers never heard of it.
“Beginning in 2010, (Client) contacted (Faro) multiple times to determine the status of the request,” the complaint states. “(Faro) eventually sent an email (to the client) stating that he had “attempted to determine the status of the patent (applications) and had not yet had my questions answered.” March 2011, (client) contacted (Faro) by phone to discuss the request; however, he abruptly ended the call and did not answer when she immediately called him back.
It wasn’t until the client asked another lawyer to ask Faro about the status that the client learned that the final request had been denied, according to court documents.