When underlying USPTO disciplinary proceedings are conducted according to regulations which abolish both 35 U.S.C. § 24's mandated discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, the statute's attendant due process protections, does Mr. Piccone's Pennsylvania reciprocal suspension, based upon the USPTO action, violate the principles of Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), and, it's Pennsylvania equivalent, Pa.R.D.E. 216(c)(1) - (c)(3)?

Does Mr. Piccone's Pennsylvania reciprocal suspension, based upon the USPTO action conducted in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 24's mandated discovery and due process protections, violate the principles of Selling v. Radford and Pa.R.D.E. 216(c)(1) — (c)(3)?