U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART I— UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE › Chapter CHAPTER 2— PROCEEDINGS IN THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

35 U.S.C. § 25

Declaration in lieu of oath

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Director may by rule prescribe that 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 in such form as the Director may prescribe, such declaration to be in lieu of the oath otherwise required.(b) Whenever such written declaration is used, the document must warn the declarant that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. 1001).(Added Pub. L. 88–292, § 1, Mar. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 171; amended Pub. L. 93–596, § 1, Jan. 2, 1975, 88 Stat. 1949; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2002—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in two places.

1975—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 93–596 substituted “Patent and Trademark Office” for “Patent Office”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–596 effective Jan. 2, 1975, see section 4 of Pub. L. 93–596, set out as a note under section 1111 of Title 15, Commerce and Trade.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Lester L. Smith v. Acme Gen. Corp., 614 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lester L. Smith v. Acme Gen. Corp., 614 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1980). “§ 115 ; or declaration, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 25 ; 6) the subject matter of Patent No.”
In re Precious Diamonds, Inc., 635 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “In this case, a declaration was used in lieu of an affidavit as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 25 which provides: Declaration in lieu of oath (a) The Commissioner may by rule prescribe that any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law,…”
Stamicarbon, N.V. v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 401 F. Supp. 384 (D. Del. 1975). “35 U.S.C. § 25 . . See note 8, supra. . “Because a uniform pressure is maintained throughout the apparatus, control and operation are simple, and the prevention of operating problems is much easier.”
United States v. Anderez, 502 F. Supp. 67 (S.D. Fla. 1980). “§ 1623 (e)(1977); 35 U.S.C.A. § 25 (West.Supp.1979); 40 U.S.”
Golden v. United States, 137 Fed. Cl. 155 (Fed. Cl. 2018). “See 35 U.S.C. § 25 l(a) ("[T]he Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent[.”
United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Tech., Inc., No. 22-2133 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2024). “590 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 25 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.2 ). UTC asserted that statements lacking the required certifi- cations “forgo the guarantee of truthfulness imparted by a declarant’s acknowledgment of the possible Case: 22-2133 Document: 86 Page: 5 Filed: 06/27/2024 UNITED…”
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.