MPEP § 410 — MPEP § 410
Current through: 2022-07-01

410-Representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 Skip over navigation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 search for patents | search for trademarks 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Search 
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 PATENTS 
 
 Patent Search 

 
 Patent Process 

 
 Patent Classification 

 
 Patent Forms 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Electronic Business Center 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Resources and Guidance 

 
 Office of Data Management 

 
 Announcements 

 
 Initiatives & Events 

 
 International Protection 

 
 Employee Locator 

 
 Contact Patents 

 

 

 
 TRADEMARKS 
 
 Trademark Search 

 
 Trademarks Process 

 
 News & Notices 

 
 Manuals, Guides, Official Gazette 

 
 Laws & Regulations 

 
 Online Filing 

 
 Contact Trademarks 

 

 

 
 IP LAW & POLICY 
 
 Rulemaking 

 
 IP Policy and Enforcement 

 
 Protecting IP Overseas 

 
 Training and Education 

 
 Training Programs & Conferences 

 
 Office of Governmental Affairs 

 
 Office of Chief Economist 

 
 Boards and Counsel 

 

 

 
 PRODUCTS & SERVICES 
 
 Electronic Data Products 

 
 XML Resources 

 
 XML Resources - Retrospective 

 
 USPTO Contact Center Order Form 

 
 Services 

 
 Locate Libraries 

 
 Training/Events 

 
 Online Services Hub 

 

 

 
 INVENTORS 
 
 Patents for Inventors 

 
 Trademarks for Inventors 

 
 Inventors Assistance 

 
 Education and Information 

 
 Scam Prevention 

 
 Pro Se and Pro Bono 

 
 Current Events 

 
 State Resources 

 
 InventorsEye Newsletter 

 

 

 
 NEWS & NOTICES 
 
 Subscription Center 

 
 Press Releases 

 
 Testimony and Speeches 

 
 Director's Forum 

 
 Systems Status 

 
 Emergency Notices 

 
 USPTO Videos 

 
 Official Gazette 

 
 Federal Register Notices 

 
 Event Calendar 

 

 

 
 FAQs 
 
 Patents FAQs 

 
 Trademarks FAQs 

 
 Assignments 

 
 Security 

 
 Musicians and Artists 

 
 Browser Plugins 

 
 Other Web Resources 

 

 

 
 ABOUT US 
 
 USPTO Leadership 

 
 USPTO Organization 

 
 USPTO Offices 

 
 Careers 

 
 Budget, Performance, and Planning 

 
 Statistics 

 
 Vendor Information 

 
 Public Advisory Committees 

 
 National Medal of Technology and Innovation 

 
 IP in Motion 

 
 Contact Us 

 

 

 
 
 

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 Home Page 

 
 Patents 

 
 Patent Laws, Regulations, Policies & Procedures 

 
 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure 

 Chapter 0400 

 Section 410 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 410 Representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [R-07.2022]

 
 37 CFR 1.4 Nature of correspondence and signature requirements. 

 *****

 
 (d) 
 
 *****

 (4) Certifications— 
 (i) Certification as to the paper presented. The
 presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or
 later advocating) of any paper by a party, whether a practitioner or
 non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under §
 11.18(b) of this subchapter. Violations of §
 11.18(b)(2) of this subchapter by a party,
 whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, may result in the
 imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) of this
 subchapter. Any practitioner violating § 11.18(b) of this subchapter may also be subject
 to disciplinary action. See § 11.18(d) of this
 subchapter. 
 

 (ii) Certification as to the signature. The person
 inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section in a document submitted
 to the Office certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the
 document is his or her own signature. A person submitting a document
 signed by another under paragraph (d)(2) or
 (d)(3) of this
 section is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the
 person whose signature is present on the document was actually
 inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of
 the signature. Violations of the certification as to the signature of
 another or a person’s own signature as set forth in this paragraph may
 result in the imposition of sanctions under § 11.18(c) and (d) of this chapter.
 

 
 

 (5) Forms. The Office provides forms for the public to use in
 certain situations to assist in the filing of correspondence for a certain
 purpose and to meet certain requirements for patent applications and
 proceedings. Use of the forms for purposes for which they were not designed
 is prohibited. No changes to certification statements on the Office forms
 (e.g., oath or declaration forms, terminal disclaimer forms, petition forms,
 and nonpublication request forms) may be made. The existing text of a form,
 other than a certification statement, may be modified, deleted, or added to,
 if all text identifying the form as an Office form is removed. The
 presentation to the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later
 advocating) of any Office form with text identifying the form as an Office
 form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a
 certification under § 37 CFR 11.18(b) of this
 chapter that the existing text and any certification statements on the form
 have not been altered other than permitted by EFS-Web customization.
 

 
 

 (e) [Reserved]

 
 *****

 

 
 37 CFR 11.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office. 

 
 (a) For all documents filed in the Office in patent, trademark, and
 other non-patent matters, and all documents filed with a hearing officer in a
 disciplinary proceeding, except for correspondence that is required to be signed
 by the applicant or party, each piece of correspondence filed by a practitioner in
 the Office must bear a signature, personally signed or inserted by such
 practitioner, in compliance with § 1.4(d) or § 2.193(a) of this
 chapter.
 

 (b) By presenting to the Office or hearing officer in a disciplinary
 proceeding (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) any
 paper, the party presenting such paper, whether a practitioner or
 non-practitioner, is certifying that—
 
 (1) All statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge are
 true, all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to
 be true, and all statements made therein are made with the knowledge that
 whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the Office, knowingly and
 willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
 a material fact, or knowingly and willfully makes any false, fictitious, or
 fraudulent statements or representations, or knowingly and willfully makes
 or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false,
 fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be subject to the
 penalties set forth under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and any
 other applicable criminal statute, and violations of the provisions of this
 section may jeopardize the probative value of the paper; and
 

 (2) To the best of the party’s knowledge, information and
 belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,
 
 (i) The paper is not being presented for any improper
 purpose, such as to harass someone or to cause unnecessary delay or
 needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office;
 

 (ii) The other legal contentions therein are warranted by
 existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
 modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new
 law;
 

 (iii) The allegations and other factual contentions have
 evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to
 have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
 investigation or discovery; and
 

 (iv) The denials of factual contentions are warranted on
 the evidence, or if specifically so identified, are reasonably based
 on a lack of information or belief.
 

 
 

 
 

 (c) Violations of any of paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iv) of this
 section are, after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond, subject to such
 sanctions or actions as deemed appropriate by the USPTO Director, which may
 include, but are not limited to, any combination of—
 
 (1) Striking the offending paper;

 (2) Referring a practitioner’s conduct to the Director of the
 Office of Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action;
 

 (3) Precluding a party or practitioner from submitting a paper,
 or presenting or contesting an issue;
 

 (4) Affecting the weight given to the offending paper; or

 (5) Terminating the proceedings in the Office.

 
 

 (d) Any practitioner violating the provisions of this section may also
 be subject to disciplinary action.
 

 
 

 37 CFR
 1.4(d)(4) and (5) provide that the presentation to
 the Office (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) of any paper or
 Office form by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a
 certification under 37
 CFR 11.18(b) , and that violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) 
 may subject the party to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) . Thus, by presenting to
 the Office a paper or Office form, the party is making the certifications set forth in
 37 CFR
 11.18(b) , and is subject to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) for
 violations of 37 CFR
 11.18(b)(2) , regardless of whether the party is a practitioner or
 non-practitioner. A practitioner violating 37 CFR 11.18(b) may also be subject to
 disciplinary action in lieu of or in addition to sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c) for
 violations of 37 CFR
 11.18(b) . See 37 CFR 11.18(d) .
 

 Additional certifications provided in 37 CFR
 1.4(d)(4) and (5) include that a person inserting a
 signature into a document under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) certifies that the
 inserted signature appearing in the document is their own signature. Also, a person filing
 a document signed by another under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(2) is obligated to have a
 reasonable basis to believe that the signature present on the document was actually
 inserted by that person. The person filing the document should retain evidence of the
 authenticity of the signature. See 37 CFR 1.4(h) .
 

 37 CFR
 11.18(b) provides that, by presenting any paper to the USPTO, the
 party presenting such paper is making two certifications: (1) the first certification is
 that the statements made therein are subject to the declaration clause of 37 CFR 1.68 ; (2) the
 second certification is the certification required for papers filed in a federal court
 under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 37 CFR 1.4(d)(5) 
 makes clear that presenting a completed Office form to the USPTO constitutes a specific
 certification under 37
 CFR 11.18(b) .
 

 The first certification has permitted the USPTO to eliminate the separate
 verification requirement previously contained in several rules for statements of facts by
 persons who are not registered to practice before the USPTO. As statements submitted to the
 USPTO by any person are now, by operation of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1) , verified
 statements, a separate verification requirement is no longer necessary. The USPTO, however,
 has retained the verification requirement for a statement to be submitted under oath or
 declaration ( 37 CFR
 1.68 ) in a number of sections (e.g., 37 CFR 1.63 ,
 1.64 , 1.130 , 1.131 ,
 1.132 , 1.495(f) , and 5.25 ).
 

 The second certification is based upon Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of
 Civil Procedure (2007). This provision is promulgated pursuant to the Director’s authority
 under 35 U.S.C.
 2(b)(2) to establish regulations for the conduct of proceedings in
 the USPTO, and is intended to discourage the filing of frivolous papers by practitioners or
 non-practitioners in the USPTO. Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
 provides:
 

 
 Representations to Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written
 motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an
 attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge,
 information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
 

 (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
 harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
 

 (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
 existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing
 existing law or for establishing new law;
 

 (3)the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
 so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
 further investigation or discovery; and
 

 (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
 if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
 information.
 

 
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2007). 

 37 CFR
 11.18(b)(2) includes the same substantive requirements as Fed. R.
 Civ. P. 11(b). The advisory committee notes to the 1993 revision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)
 provide, in part, that:
 

 
 [Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) and (c)] restate the provisions requiring
 attorneys and pro se litigants to conduct a reasonable inquiry into
 the law and facts before signing pleadings, written motions, and other documents, and
 prescribing sanctions for violations of these obligations. The [1993] revision in part
 expands the responsibilities of litigants to the court, while providing greater
 constraints and flexibility in dealing with infractions of the rule. The rule continues
 to require litigants to “stop-and-think” before initially making legal or factual
 contentions. It also, however, emphasizes the duty of candor by subjecting litigants to
 potential sanctions for insisting upon a position after it is no longer tenable and by
 generally providing protection against sanctions if they withdraw or correct contentions
 after a potential violation is called to their attention.
 

 The rule applies only to assertions contained in papers filed with or
 submitted to the court. It does not cover matters arising for the first time during oral
 presentations to the court, when counsel may make statements that would not have been
 made if there had been more time for study and reflection. However, a litigant's
 obligations with respect to the contents of these papers are not measured solely as of
 the time they are filed with or submitted to the court, but include reaffirming to the
 court and advocating positions contained in those pleadings and motions after learning
 that they cease to have any merit. For example, an attorney who during a pretrial
 conference insists on a claim or defense should be viewed as “presenting to the court”
 that contention and would be subject to the obligations of [Rule 11(b)] measured as of
 that time. Similarly, if after a notice of removal is filed, a party urges in federal
 court the allegations of a pleading filed in state court (whether as claims, defenses,
 or in disputes regarding removal or remand), it would be viewed as “presenting”-- and
 hence certifying to the district court under Rule 11--those allegations.
 

 The certification with respect to allegations and other factual
 contentions is revised in recognition that sometimes a litigant may have good reason to
 believe that a fact is true or false but may need discovery, formal or informal, from
 opposing parties or third persons to gather and confirm the evidentiary basis for the
 allegation. Tolerance of factual contentions in initial pleadings by plaintiffs or
 defendants when specifically identified as made on information and belief does not
 relieve litigants from the obligation to conduct an appropriate investigation into the
 facts that is reasonable under the circumstances; it is not a license to join parties,
 make claims, or present defenses without any factual basis or justification. Moreover,
 if evidentiary support is not obtained after a reasonable opportunity for further
 investigation or discovery, the party has a duty under the rule not to persist with that
 contention. [Rule 11(b)] does not require a formal amendment to pleadings for which
 evidentiary support is not obtained, but rather calls upon a litigant not thereafter to
 advocate such claims or defenses.
 

 The certification is that there is (or likely will be) “evidentiary
 support” for the allegation, not that the party will prevail with respect to its
 contention regarding the fact. That summary judgment is rendered against a party does
 not necessarily mean, for purposes of this certification, that it had no evidentiary
 support for its position. On the other hand, if a party has evidence with respect to a
 contention that would suffice to defeat a motion for summary judgment based thereon, it
 would have sufficient “evidentiary support” for purposes of Rule 11.
 

 Denials of factual contentions involve somewhat different
 considerations. Often, of course, a denial is premised upon the existence of evidence
 contradicting the alleged fact. At other times a denial is permissible because, after an
 appropriate investigation, a party has no information concerning the matter or, indeed,
 has a reasonable basis for doubting the credibility of the only evidence relevant to the
 matter. A party should not deny an allegation it knows to be true; but it is not
 required, simply because it lacks contradictory evidence, to admit an allegation that it
 believes is not true.
 

 The changes in [Rule 11(b)(3) and (4)] will serve to equalize the burden
 of the rule upon plaintiffs and defendants, who under Rule 8(b) are in effect allowed to
 deny allegations by stating that from their initial investigation they lack sufficient
 information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. If, after further
 investigation or discovery, a denial is no longer warranted, the defendant should not
 continue to insist on that denial. While sometimes helpful, formal amendment of the
 pleadings to withdraw an allegation or denial is not required by [Rule 11(b)].
 

 Arguments for extensions, modifications, or reversals of existing law or
 for creation of new law do not violate [Rule 11(b)(2)] provided they are “nonfrivolous.”
 This establishes an objective standard, intended to eliminate any “empty-head
 pure-heart” justification for patently frivolous arguments. However, to the extent to
 which a litigant has researched the issues and found some support for its theories even
 in minority opinions, in law review articles, or through consultation with other
 attorneys should certainly be taken into account in determining whether [Rule 11(b)(2)]
 has been violated. Although arguments for a change in law are not required to be
 specifically so identified, a contention that is so identified should be viewed with
 greater tolerance under [Rule 11].
 

 
 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure at 50-53 (1993). An
 “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” requirement of 37 CFR 10.18(b)(2) is identical
 to that in Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). The federal courts have stated in regard to the
 “reasonable inquiry” requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11:
 

 
 In requiring reasonable inquiry before the filing of any pleading in a
 civil case in federal district court, Rule 11 demands “an objective determination of
 whether a sanctioned party's conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.” In effect
 it imposes a negligence standard, for negligence is a failure to use reasonable care.
 The equation between negligence and failure to conduct a reasonable precomplaint inquiry
 is . . . that “the amount of investigation required by Rule 11 depends on both the time
 available to investigate and on the probability that more investigation will turn up
 important evidence; the Rule does not require steps that are not cost-justified.”
 

 
 Hays v. Sony Corp. of Am., 847 F.2d 412, 418, 7 USPQ2d 1043, 1048 (7th.
 Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (decided prior to the 1993 amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11,
 but discussing a “reasonable under the circumstances” standard).
 

 37 CFR
 1.4(d)(4) and (5) and 11.18 do not require
 a practitioner to advise the client (or third party) providing information of this
 certification effect (or the sanctions applicable to noncompliance), or question the client
 (or third party) when such information or instructions are provided. When a practitioner is
 submitting information (e.g., a statement of fact) from the applicant or a third party, or
 relying upon information from the applicant or a third party in their arguments, the Office
 will consider a practitioner's “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” duty under
 37 CFR
 11.18 met so long as the practitioner has no knowledge of information
 that is contrary to the information provided by the applicant or third party or would
 otherwise indicate that the information provided by the applicant or third party was so
 provided for the purpose of a violation of 37 CFR 11.18 (e.g., was submitted to
 cause unnecessary delay).
 

 Nevertheless, it is highly advisable for a practitioner to advise a client
 or third party that any information so provided must be reliable and not misleading. The
 submission by an applicant of misleading or inaccurate statements of facts during the
 prosecution of applications for patent has resulted in the patents issuing on such
 applications being held unenforceable. See e.g., Refac Int'l Ltd. v. Lotus
 Development Corp., 81 F.3d 1576, 38 USPQ2d 1665 (Fed. Cir. 1996);
 Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d
 1182, 25 USPQ2d 1561 (Fed. Cir 1993); Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chem.
 Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 200 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
 denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984); Ott v. Goodpasture, 40 USPQ2d
 1831 (D.N. Tex. 1996); Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co., 39 USPQ2d
 1773 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); Golden Valley Microwave Food Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn
 Co., 837 F. Supp. 1444, 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992),
 aff'd, 11 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(table), cert.
 denied, 511 U.S. 1128 (1994). Likewise, false statements by a practitioner in
 a paper submitted to the Office during the prosecution of an application for patent have
 resulted in the patent issuing on such application also being held unenforceable. See
 General Electro Music Corp. v. Samick Music Corp., 19 F.3d 1405, 30
 USPQ2d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(false statement in a petition to make an application special
 constitutes inequitable conduct, and renders the patent issuing on such application
 unenforceable).
 

 An applicant has no duty to conduct a prior art search as a prerequisite to
 filing an application for patent. See Nordberg, Inc. v. Telsmith, Inc., 
 82 F.3d 394, 397, 38 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (Fed. Cir. 1996); FMC Corp. v. Hennessy
 Indus., Inc., 836 F.2d 521, 526 n.6, 5 USPQ2d 1272, 1275-76 n.6 (Fed. Cir.
 1987); FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411, 1415, 5 USPQ2d 1112,
 1115 (Fed. Cir. 1987); American Hoist & Derrick Co. v. Sowa & Sons,
 Inc., 725 F.2d 1350, 1362, 220 USPQ 763, 772 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
 denied, 469 U.S. 821, 224 USPQ 520 (1984). Thus, the “inquiry reasonable under
 the circumstances” requirement of 37 CFR 11.18 does not create any new
 duty on the part of an applicant for patent to conduct a prior art search. See
 MPEP §
 609 ; cf. Judin v. United States, 110 F.3d
 780, 42 USPQ2d 1300 (Fed. Cir 1997)(the failure to obtain and examine the accused
 infringing device prior to bringing a civil action for infringement violates the 1983
 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). The “inquiry reasonable under the circumstances”
 requirement of 37 CFR
 11.18 , however, will require an inquiry into the underlying facts and
 circumstances when a practitioner provides conclusive statements to the Office (e.g., a
 statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the
 reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to 37 CFR 1.137(a) was
 unintentional).
 

 37 CFR
 11.18(c) specifically provides that violations of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(1) 
 may jeopardize the validity of the application or document, or the validity or
 enforceability of any patent, trademark registration, or certificate resulting therefrom,
 and that violations of any of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(i) through
 (iv) are, after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond,
 subject to such sanctions as deemed appropriate by the USPTO Director, which may include,
 but are not limited to, any combination of: 
 

 
 (1) Striking the offending paper; 

 (2) Referring a practitioner’s conduct to the Director of the Office of
 Enrollment and Discipline for appropriate action; 
 

 (3) Precluding a party or practitioner from submitting a paper, or
 presenting or contesting an issue; 
 

 (4) Affecting the weight given to the offending paper; or

 (5) Terminating the proceedings in the Office.

 
 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and 11.18 are intended to discourage the
 filing of frivolous or clearly unwarranted correspondence in the Office; the Office does
 not routinely review correspondence for compliance with 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2) and impose sanctions
 under 37 CFR
 11.18(c) . 
 

 Where the circumstances of an application or other proceeding warrant a
 determination of whether there has been a violation of 37 CFR 11.18(b) , the file or the
 application or other proceeding may be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner for Patents who
 oversees the Office of Petitions for a determination of whether there has been a violation
 of 37 CFR
 11.18(b) . See MPEP § 714.25 . In the event that a
 provision of 37 CFR
 11.18(b) has been violated, the USPTO Director will determine what
 (if any) sanction(s) under 37 CFR 11.18(c) is to be imposed in the
 application or other proceeding. 
 

 Any practitioner violating the provisions of
 37 CFR
 11.18 may be subject to disciplinary action. 37 CFR 11.18(d) (and
 the corresponding provision of 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) ) clarifies that a
 practitioner may be subject to disciplinary action in lieu of, or in addition to, the
 sanctions set forth in 37
 CFR 11.8(c) for violations of 37 CFR 11.18 . If a provision of
 37 CFR
 11.18(b) has been violated by a practitioner, the Office of
 Enrollment and Discipline (OED) will determine whether such practitioner is to be subject
 to disciplinary action (see 37 CFR 1.4(d)(4) and 11.18(d) ). 
 

 [top] 

 

 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 401-U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Cannot Aid in Selection of Patent Practitioner 

 402-Power of Attorney; Naming Representative 
 402.01-Limited Recognition in Patent Matters 

 402.02-Appointment of Power of Attorney 
 402.02(a)-Appointment in Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 

 402.02(b)-Appointment in Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 

 
 

 402.03-Signature Requirements for Papers Filed in an Application 

 402.04-Acting in a Representative Capacity 

 402.05-Revocation of Power of Attorney 
 402.05(a)-Applicant Revocation - Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 

 402.05(b)-Applicant Revocation - Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 

 
 

 402.06-Attorney or Agent Withdraws 

 402.07-Assignee Revocation of Power of Attorney of Applicant and Appointment of New Power of Attorney 

 402.08-Application in Interference or Derivation Proceeding 

 402.09-International Application 

 402.10-Appointment/Revocation by Less Than All Applicants or Owners 

 
 

 403-Correspondence — With Whom Held; Customer Number Practice 
 403.01-Correspondence in Applications 
 403.01(a)-Correspondence in Applications Filed On or After September 16, 2012 

 403.01(b) -Correspondence in Applications Filed Before September 16, 2012 

 
 

 403.02-Two Patent Practitioners for Same Application 

 
 

 404-[Reserved] 

 405-Interviews With Patent Practitioner Not of Record 

 406-Death of Patent Practitioner 

 407-Suspended or Excluded Patent Practitioner 

 408-Interviews With Patent Practitioner of Record 

 409-Death, Legal Incapacity, or Unavailability of Inventor 
 409.01-Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor 
 409.01(a)-Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor - Application Filed on or After September 16, 2012 

 409.01(b)-Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor- Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 

 
 

 409.02-Unavailable Joint Inventor – Application Filed on or after September 16, 2012 

 409.03-Unavailability of Inventor – Application Filed Before September 16, 2012 
 409.03(a)-At Least One Joint Inventor Available 

 409.03(b)-No Inventor Available 

 409.03(c)-Unavailable Legal Representative of Deceased Inventor 

 409.03(d)-Proof of Unavailability or Refusal 

 409.03(e)-Statement of Last Known Address 

 409.03(f)-Proof of Proprietary Interest 

 409.03(g)-Proof of Irreparable Damage 

 409.03(h)-Processing and Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application 

 409.03(i)-Rights of the Nonsigning Inventor 

 409.03(j)-Action Following Acceptance of a Pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.47 Application 

 
 

 409.04-[Reserved] 

 409.05-Application For Patent by an Assignee, Obligated Assignee, or a Person Who Otherwise Shows Sufficient Proprietary Interest
 – Application Filed On or After September 16, 2012 

 
 

 410-Representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

 

 

 
 

 
 
 

 
 

 

 
 
 Accessibility 

 Privacy Policy 

 Terms of Use 

 Security 

 Emergencies/Security Alerts 

 Information Quality Guidelines 

 
 

 
 
 Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act 

 Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (NoFEAR) Act 

 Budget & Performance 

 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

 
 

 
 
 Department of Commerce NoFEAR Act Report 

 Regulations.gov 

 STOP!Fakes.gov 

 Department of Commerce 

 USA.gov 

 
 

 
 
 Strategy Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP!) 

 Careers 

 Site Index 

 Contact Us 

 Submit Feedback 

 
 

 
 This page is owned by Patents.

 Last Modified: 
 
 03/09/2026 20:49:43