37 C.F.R. § 3.54
Effect of recording
The recording of a document pursuant to § 3.11 is not a determination by the Office of the validity of the document or the effect that document has on the title to an application, a patent, or a registration. When necessary, the Office will determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case: Kaempe, Staffan v. Myers, George, 367 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
Kaempe, Staffan v. Myers, George, 367 F.3d 958 (D.C. Cir. 2004). “37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (2003); MPEP § 317.03. B.”
SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “See 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 . However, we think that it creates a presumption of validity as to the assignment and places the burden to rebut such a showing on one challenging the assignment.”
Sunrise Med. HHG, Inc. v. AirSep Corp., 95 F. Supp. 2d 348 (W.D. Pa. 2000). “” 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 . Thus, the mere fact that Sunrise recorded what purports to be an assignment document does not mean, without more, that the assignment was valid or transferred title to the patent.”
TM Patents, L.P. v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 121 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “In fact, the companion regulation, 37 CFR § 3.54 , expressly provides that “The recording of a document .”
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 134 F. Supp. 3d 877 (W.D. Pa. 2015). “2014); see also 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (“The recording of a document .”
COR Mktg. & Sales, Inc. v. Greyhawk Corp., 994 F. Supp. 437 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). “See 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (1995) (“The recording of a document .”
Gaia Tech., Inc. v. Reconversion Tech., Inc., 93 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “See 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (1995) ("The recording of a document .”
Clouding IP, LLC v. Google Inc., 61 F. Supp. 3d 421 (D. Del. 2014). “”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 . . Because the transfer of rights was made "subject to” the conditions of the Agreement, Clouding’s attempt to characterize the limitations Symantec placed on each of these rights as merely "post-closing covenants” is unavailing.”
Accutrax, LLC v. Kildevaeld, 140 F. Supp. 3d 168 (D. Mass. 2015). “” 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 . If an assignee does not record its assignment with the PTO, it has no legal effect against any subsequent bona fide purchaser.”
Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Advanced Semiconductor Eng'g, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023). “73 (c)(1); see also 37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (“When necessary, the Office will determine what effect a document has, including whether a party has the authority to take an action in a matter pending before the Office.”
Valjakka v. Netflix, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024). “37 C.F.R. § 3.54 (2000) 11 (“[t]he recording of a document pursuant to § 3.”
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.