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 A—General Provisions

37 C.F.R. § 1.9

Definitions

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

(a)(1) A national application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111, an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.

(2) A provisional application as used in this chapter means a U.S. national application for patent filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(b).

(3) A nonprovisional application as used in this chapter means either a U.S. national application for patent which was filed in the Office under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), an international application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in which the basic national fee under 35 U.S.C. 41(a)(1)(F) has been paid, or an international design application filed under the Hague Agreement in which the Office has received a copy of the international registration pursuant to Hague Agreement Article 10.

(b) An international application as used in this chapter means an international application for patent filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty prior to entering national processing at the Designated Office stage.

(c) A published application as used in this chapter means an application for patent which has been published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b).

(d)(1) The term inventor or inventorship as used in this chapter means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.

(2) The term joint inventor or coinventor as used in this chapter means any one of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint invention.

(e) The term joint research agreement as used in this chapter means a written contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by two or more persons or entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work in the field of the claimed invention.

(f) The term claimed invention as used in this chapter means the subject matter defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.

(g) For definitions in Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, see parts 41 and 42 of this title.

(h) A Federal holiday within the District of Columbia as used in this chapter means any day, except Saturdays and Sundays, when the Patent and Trademark Office is officially closed for business for the entire day.

(i) National security classified as used in this chapter means specifically authorized under criteria established by an Act of Congress or Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such Act of Congress or Executive Order.

(j) Director as used in this chapter, except for part 11 of this chapter, means the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

(k) Paper as used in this chapter means a document that may exist in electronic form, or in physical form, and therefore does not necessarily imply physical sheets of paper.

(l) Hague Agreement as used in this chapter means the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs adopted at Geneva, Switzerland, on July 2, 1999, and Hague Agreement Article as used in this chapter means an Article under the Hague Agreement.

(m) Hague Agreement Regulations as used in this chapter means the Common Regulations Under the 1999 Act and the 1960 Act of the Hague Agreement, and Hague Agreement Rule as used in this chapter means one of the Hague Agreement Regulations.

(n) An international design application as used in this chapter means an application for international registration of a design filed under the Hague Agreement. Unless otherwise clear from the wording, reference to “design application” or “application for a design patent” in this chapter includes an international design application that designates the United States.

(o) Eastern Time as used in this chapter means Eastern Standard Time or Eastern Daylight Time in the United States, as appropriate.

(p) The term domicile as used in this chapter means the permanent legal place of residence of a natural person or the principal place of business of a juristic entity.

[43 FR 20461, May 11, 1978, as amended at 47 FR 40139, Sept. 10, 1982; 47 FR 43275, Sept. 30, 1982; 49 FR 48451, Dec. 12, 1984; 60 FR 20220, Apr. 25, 1995; 61 FR 56447, Nov. 1, 1996; 62 FR 53181, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54657, Sept. 8, 2000; 65 FR 57051, Sept. 20, 2000; 68 FR 14336, Mar. 25, 2003; 68 FR 38624, June 30, 2003; 69 FR 49997, Aug. 12, 2004; 73 FR 47685, Aug. 14, 2008; 77 FR 46624, Aug. 6, 2012; 77 FR 48812, Aug. 14, 2012; 78 FR 11052, Feb. 14, 2013; 80 FR 17953, Apr. 2, 2015; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022; 91 FR 13519, Mar. 20, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1996–2008 · leading case: Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 504 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 504 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “, or to any concern which would not qualify as a small business concern or a nonprofit organization,” see 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (c) (July 1, 2000). Appellants argue that the CFLA did not constitute such an obligation to license, so that it did not remove Nilssen from the definition of…”
Dh Tech., Inc. (Now Axiohm Transaction Solutions, Inc.) v. Synergystex Int'l, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1997). The regulations define a small business concern “as one whose number of employees, including those of its affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 10× “37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1993). 1 “Small business concern” is defined in accordance with the definition established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).”
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. s.a., 412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “In his declaration dated March 11, 1988, Jorgenson identified himself as an independent inventor, stating: As below named inventor, I hereby declare that I qualify as an independent inventor as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(c) for purposes of paying reduced fees under 35 USC 41(a) & (b)…”
Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Townsend, 542 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2008). “The application listed Townsend and Nutt as the inventors and included a form entitled “Statement Claiming Small Entity Status (37 CFR 1.9(f) & 1.27(b)) — Independent Inventor.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “3-18 , and reproduced in 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (d), for purposes [sic] of paying reduced fees under section 41(a) and (b) of Title 25, United States Code .”
Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., 440 F. Supp. 2d 884 (N.D. Ill. 2006). “37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (d). A “nonprofit organization,” up until August 2001, was defined, in pertinent part, as: (2) an organization of the type described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (26 U.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 5× “who could not qualify as a small business concern under 37 CFR 1.9(d)." (App. at 523.) The PTO granted the petition and reinstated the patent on November 15, 1993.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 130 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (C.D. Cal. 2001). · cites it 2× “3-18 , and reproduced in 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (d), for purposes [sic] of paying reduced fees under section 41(a) and (b) of Title 25, United States Code .”
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “See 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (d) (1985) (providing that small entity status is lost when any rights are licensed to any concern that does not qualify as a small entity).”
DH Tech., Inc. v. Synergystex Int'l, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 902 (N.D. Cal. 1996). · cites it 2× “37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (d). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) provides that: The number of employees of a business concern is determined by counting the number of persons of the concern and its affiliates employed on a full-time, part-time, or temporary basis during the…”
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Kan. 2000). · cites it 5× “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (“A small entity as used in this chapter means an independent inventor, a small business concern, or a nonprofit organization eligible for reduced patent fees.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.9(c) — 2 cases
Checkpoint Sys., Inc. v. All-Tag Sec. s.a., 412 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “In his declaration dated March 11, 1988, Jorgenson identified himself as an independent inventor, stating: As below named inventor, I hereby declare that I qualify as an independent inventor as defined in 37 CFR 1.9(c) for purposes of paying reduced fees under 35 USC 41(a) & (b)…”
McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D. Kan. 2000). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (“A small entity as used in this chapter means an independent inventor, a small business concern, or a nonprofit organization eligible for reduced patent fees.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.9(d) — 3 cases
Dh Tech., Inc. (Now Axiohm Transaction Solutions, Inc.) v. Synergystex Int'l, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1997). The regulations define a small business concern “as one whose number of employees, including those of its affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1993). 1 “Small business concern” is defined in accordance with the definition established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “who could not qualify as a small business concern under 37 CFR 1.9(d)." (App. at 523.) The PTO granted the petition and reinstated the patent on November 15, 1993.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.9(f) — 6 cases
Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Townsend, 542 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2008). “The application listed Townsend and Nutt as the inventors and included a form entitled “Statement Claiming Small Entity Status (37 CFR 1.9(f) & 1.27(b)) — Independent Inventor.”
Dh Tech., Inc. (Now Axiohm Transaction Solutions, Inc.) v. Synergystex Int'l, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 154 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “” See 37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1997). The regulations define a small business concern “as one whose number of employees, including those of its affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons.”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “37 C.F.R. § 1.9 (f) (1993). 1 “Small business concern” is defined in accordance with the definition established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”).”
Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Comput. & Mgmt. Corp., 351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “who could not qualify as a small business concern under 37 CFR 1.9(d)." (App. at 523.) The PTO granted the petition and reinstated the patent on November 15, 1993.”
Biby v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb. at Lincoln, 338 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Neb. 2004).
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.