C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES › Subpart B—National Processing Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.68

Declaration in lieu of oath

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

Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be under oath may be subscribed to by a written declaration. Such declaration may be used in lieu of the oath otherwise required, if, and only if, the declarant is on the same document, warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001) and may jeopardize the validity of the application or any patent issuing thereon. The declarant must set forth in the body of the declaration that all statements made of the declarant's own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.

[49 FR 48452, Dec. 12, 1984]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (C.C.P.A. 1981). “66, or (b) include the personal declaration of the applicant as prescribed in 37 CFR 1.68. See 37 CFR 1.65(a)(2). In the present case, the declaration per se was subscribed by the applicant and included an appropriate personal declaration of the applicant.”
Aristocrat Tech. Australia PTY Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech. & IGT, 491 F. Supp. 2d 916 (N.D. Cal. 2007). “66 or 37 CFR 1.68. The notification set a one-month time limit to respond.”
Stewart v. Core Labs., Inc., 460 F. Supp. 931 (N.D. Tex. 1978). “37 CFR 1.68. Section 1001 makes it a crime for a person in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States to make a false statement or representation knowing the same to be false.”
United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Tech., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024). “5 (b)), and here the Board exercised that discretion to waive the attestation requirement under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.68 , 42. See Appellee’s Br.”
Ramot at Tel Aviv Univ. Ltd. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2020). “10 Declaration of Daniel Blumenthal, Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68 In Support Of Petition For Inter Partes Review, Cisco Systems Inc.”
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.