37 C.F.R. § 1.31
Applicant may be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors
An applicant for patent may file and prosecute the applicant's own case, or the applicant may give power of attorney so as to be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors, except that a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee) must be represented by a patent practitioner even if the juristic entity is the applicant. The Office cannot aid in the selection of a patent practitioner.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1963–2020 · leading case: In Re: Queen's Univ. at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In Re: Queen's Univ. at Kingston, 820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “’ 37 CFR § 1.31 .” (citing Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.”
Wright v. Rinaldo, 761 N.W.2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “" 37 CFR 1.31. The power of attorney in a patent case serves exactly the same function as an appearance: When a patent practitioner acting in a representative capacity appears in person or signs a paper in practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office in a patent…”
Sperry v. Florida Ex Rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963). “” 37 CFR § 1.31 . (Emphasis added.) The current regulations establish two separate registers “on which are entered the names of all persons recognized as entitled to represent applicants before the Patent Office in the preparation and prosecution of applications for patent.”
Augustine v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “31 (b) (2004) (Merit Systems Protection Board); 37 C.F.R. § 1.31 (2004) (Patent and Trademark Office); 29 C.”
Spanos v. Skouras Theatres Corp., 235 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1964). “’ 37 CFR § 1.31 . (Emphasis added.)” In this connection, the provisions of 28 U.”
In Re Amalgamated Dev. Co., Inc., 375 A.2d 494 (D.C. 1977). “37 C.F.R. § 1.31 (1976). 4 To represent another before the Commissioner of Patents, however, the requirements set out in the regulations established by the Commissioner pursuant to 35 U.”
Janson v. LegalZoom. Com, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (W.D. Mo. 2011). “With respect to patents, 37 C.F.R. § 1.31 states that an applicant may file and prosecute his own case or “may give a power of attorney so as to be represented by one or more patent practitioners or joint inventors.”
Tube-mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell (W.D. Pa. 2020). “The power of attorney relied upon by Plaintiffs further provides: This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.31, 1.32. and 1.33. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process) an application.”
Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell (E.D. Va. 2020). “The power of attorney relied upon by Plaintiffs further provides: This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.31, 1.32. and 1.33. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process) an application.”
Svatovic v. United States Pat. & Trademark Off., 617 F. App'x 100 (2d Cir. 2015). “Although the right to prosecute a patent application on one’s own behalf is protected by regulation, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.31 , and although an assertion of intentional denials of a patent or delays in the PTO review process based on a party’s pro se status might therefore give rise…”
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.