C.F.R. » Title 37 » CHAPTER I—UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 11—REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Subpart B—Recognition To Practice Before the USPTO

37 C.F.R. § 11.18

Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Office

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

(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.

[73 FR 47689, Aug. 14, 2008, as amended at 74 FR 54912, Oct. 26, 2009; 78 FR 62409, Oct. 21, 2013; 86 FR 28457, May 26, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Steven Trzaska v. LOreal USA Inc, 865 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Steven Trzaska v. LOreal USA Inc, 865 F.3d 155 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Trzaska also asserts that 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.18 , 11.113, 11.201, and 11.”
Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 605 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “" In addition, 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 governs representations to the PTO by practitioners and non-practitioners.”
Hyatt v. Iancu, 332 F. Supp. 3d 113 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “, *135 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (c) (providing for adjudication of certain alleged rules violations "after notice and reasonable opportunity to respond.”
Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 220 F. Supp. 3d 707 (E.D. Va. 2016). · cites it 6× “USAA claims that the Plaintiffs and *716 the above-named agents did so despite their knowledge of the false certification contained in the Non-Publication Requests, thus violating 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (b), which requires that all statements contained in any paper presented to the…”
Asghari-Kamrani v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 252 F. Supp. 3d 562 (E.D. Va. 2017). · cites it 3× “Thus, USAA argued, the NPRs were unmistakably false affidavits that violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (b) (requiring that any signed representations to the USPTO are -true).”
Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., 90 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “, 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (setting forth require- ments for signing and filing documents with the PTO, and warning penalties for violating the same); J.”
CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. Johnson & Johnson & Janssen Biotech, Inc. (E.D. Va. 2025). · cites it 4× “Matovcik’s statement in her rebuttal report that a duty of reasonable inquiry arose under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 once an affirmative statement was made to the PTO.”
1BMF Inc. v. D. B. Miller Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2024). · cites it 3× “See 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (2023). To cancel an otherwise incontestable mark for fraudulent registration, a plaintiff must prove (1) a false representation of a material fact, (2) knowledge or belief that the representation is false, (3) intent to induce the USPTO to act or refrain…”
Stewart (E.D. Va. 2026). · cites it 2× “On September 18, 2024, the USPTO issued a Final Order concluding that “the signatures of the practitioner which appear in this application are in fact false signatures[,]” consequently imposing sanctions and terminating the ‘688 Application under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (c). AR…”
Hyatt v. Matal (D.D.C. 2018). “Hyatt’s applications prior to this litigation, Further, 37 C.F.R. §11.18 itself specifies that alleged 33 The PTO fears that, in declining to agree with its position on prosecution laches here, the Court will have established that the PTO can suffer legally from attempting to…”
Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2024). “, 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 (setting forth require- ments for signing and filing documents with the PTO, and warning penalties for violating the same); J.”
Rein Tech, Inc. v. Mueller Sys., LLC (D. Del. 2026). “See 37 CFR § 11.18 (b) (signing or filing any paper for presentation to the USPTO is a certification that “all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true” and that the signatory is aware of the criminal penalties for fraudulent statements).”
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.