37 C.F.R. § 1.10

Filing of correspondence by Priority Mail Express®

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1) Any correspondence received by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that was delivered by the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the United States Postal Service (USPS) will be considered filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the USPS.

(2) The date of deposit with USPS is shown by the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® label or other official USPS notation. If the USPS deposit date cannot be determined, the correspondence will be accorded the USPTO receipt date as the filing date. See § 1.6(a).

(b) Correspondence should be deposited directly with an employee of the USPS to ensure that the person depositing the correspondence receives a legible copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label with the “date accepted” clearly marked. Persons dealing indirectly with the employees of the USPS (such as by deposit in a Priority Mail Express® drop box) do so at the risk of not receiving a copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label with the desired “date accepted” clearly marked. The paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence should also include the Priority Mail Express® mailing label number thereon. See paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.

(c) Any person filing correspondence under this section that was received by the Office and delivered by the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, who can show that there is a discrepancy between the filing date accorded by the Office to the correspondence and the date of deposit as shown by the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation, may petition the Director to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official USPS notation, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date other than the USPS deposit date;

(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail Express®; and

(3) The petition includes a true copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” and of any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit.

(d) Any person filing correspondence under this section that was received by the Office and delivered by the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, who can show that the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official notation entered by the USPS was incorrectly entered or omitted by the USPS, may petition the Director to accord the correspondence a filing date as of the date the correspondence is shown to have been deposited with the USPS, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has accorded, or will accord, a filing date based upon an incorrect entry by the USPS;

(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail Express®; and

(3) The petition includes a showing which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the requested filing date was the date the correspondence was deposited in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup for that day. Any showing pursuant to this paragraph must be corroborated by evidence from the USPS or that came into being after deposit and within one business day of the deposit of the correspondence in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS.

(e) Any person mailing correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS but not received by the Office, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence filed in the Office on the USPS deposit date, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware that the Office has no evidence of receipt of the correspondence;

(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail Express®;

(3) The petition includes a copy of the originally deposited paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon, a copy of any returned postcard receipt, a copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted,” a copy of any other official notation by the USPS relied upon to show the date of deposit, and, if the requested filing date is a date other than the “date accepted” on the Priority Mail Express® mailing label or other official notation entered by the USPS, a showing pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of this section that the requested filing date was the date the correspondence was deposited in the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service prior to the last scheduled pickup for that day; and

(4) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the correspondence and that the copies of the correspondence, the copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label, the copy of any returned postcard receipt, and any official notation entered by the USPS are true copies of the originally mailed correspondence, original Priority Mail Express® mailing label, returned postcard receipt, and official notation entered by the USPS.

(f) The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was deposited as Priority Mail Express® with the USPS on the date in question.

(g) Any person who mails correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence returned by the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the return of the correspondence;

(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the original mailing by Priority Mail Express®;

(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon and a copy of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label showing the “date accepted”; and

(4) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original deposit of the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was returned by the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service.

(h) Any person who attempts to mail correspondence addressed as set out in § 1.1(a) to the Office with sufficient postage utilizing the Priority Mail Express® Post Office to Addressee service of the USPS, but has the correspondence refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed promptly after the person becomes aware of the refusal of the correspondence;

(2) The number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label was placed on the paper(s) or fee(s) that constitute the correspondence prior to the attempted mailing by Priority Mail Express®;

(3) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence showing the number of the Priority Mail Express® mailing label thereon; and

(4) The petition includes a statement by the person who originally attempted to deposit the correspondence with the USPS which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, the original attempt to deposit the correspondence and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date. The Office may require additional evidence to determine if the correspondence was refused by an employee of the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service.

(i) Any person attempting to file correspondence under this section that was unable to be deposited with the USPS due to an interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service which has been so designated by the Director, may petition the Director to consider such correspondence as filed on a particular date in the Office, provided that:

(1) The petition is filed in a manner designated by the Director promptly after the person becomes aware of the designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service;

(2) The petition includes the original correspondence or a copy of the original correspondence; and

(3) The petition includes a statement which establishes, to the satisfaction of the Director, that the correspondence would have been deposited with the USPS but for the designated interruption or emergency in Priority Mail Express® service, and that the correspondence or copy of the correspondence is the original correspondence or a true copy of the correspondence originally attempted to be deposited with the USPS on the requested filing date.

[79 FR 63039, Oct. 22, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2006).
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2006). · cites it 15× “§ 21 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.10 (doc. no. 142); (4) That aspect of ClearCube’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that: (i) the filing date of the ’442 application is January 5, 1994; (ii) the ’442 application lacks copendency with the ’689 application, which…”
O'shannessy v. Doll, 566 F. Supp. 2d 486 (E.D. Va. 2008). · cites it 9× “The USPTO subsequently promulgated Rule 10, codified at 37 C.F.R. § 1.10 (2007), which provides that an application (or other paper or fee) would be “considered filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the USPS” if the filer deposited the application and related…”
Aristocrat Tech. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. & IGT, 491 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2007). · cites it 2× “Islam’s petition to correct the “Date-In” had not provided sufficient corroborative evidence under 37 C.F.R. 1.10, *921 such as “a copy of the Express Mail Label,” 8 or “a statement from a USPS employee having firsthand knowledge of the time of the last pickup on 10 January 2000.”
Orion Ip, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, 485 F. Supp. 2d 745 (E.D. Tex. 2007). “37 C.F.R. § 1.10 (a). The Regulation Hyundai relies on does not overrule or even contradict Olah.”
Guymon v. Vidal (E.D. Va. 2025). “Plaintiff further cites 37 C.F.R. 1.10 as a reason to be granted mailing time, because it states that “[a]ny correspondence received by the U.”
Honigsbaum v. Lehman, 903 F. Supp. 8 (D.D.C. 1995). “He found that plaintiff had failed to bring himself within the curative provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.10 (c) by submitting with his petition “a copy of his Express Mail customer receipt or any other Postal Service record showing that the Express Mail package in question was…”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.10(c) — 1 case
Aristocrat Tech. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. & IGT, 491 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “Islam’s petition to correct the “Date-In” had not provided sufficient corroborative evidence under 37 C.F.R. 1.10, *921 such as “a copy of the Express Mail Label,” 8 or “a statement from a USPS employee having firsthand knowledge of the time of the last pickup on 10 January 2000.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.10(d) — 1 case
O'shannessy v. Doll, 566 F. Supp. 2d 486 (E.D. Va. 2008). “The USPTO subsequently promulgated Rule 10, codified at 37 C.F.R. § 1.10 (2007), which provides that an application (or other paper or fee) would be “considered filed with the USPTO on the date of deposit with the USPS” if the filer deposited the application and related…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.