35 U.S.C. § 26
Effect of defective execution
Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Director despite a defective execution, provided a properly executed document is submitted within such time as may be prescribed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1969–2014 · leading case: Dominique Dubost v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 777 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Dominique Dubost v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 777 F.2d 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “” *1563 Dubost next filed in the PTO a document entitled “Request for Reconsideration on Petition, Request for Waiver of Informality Under 35 U.S.C. § 26 and Grant of Filing Date of October '8, 1982.”
In Re Richard N. Bennett, 766 F.2d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “35 U.S.C. § 26 , for example, provides: Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Commissioner despite a defective execution,…”
Jan Gerritsen & Johannes C.J. Aerts v. Shoji Shirai, Masakzu Fukushima, Satoru Miyamoto & Masahiro Miyazaki, 979 F.2d 1524 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “2d 1049, 1052 , 161 USPQ 279 , 281 (CCPA 1969) (refusal to accept substitute verifications under 35 U.S.C. § 26 found not to be an abuse of discretion).”
In Re Jack G. Makari, 708 F.2d 709 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “On December 11, 1964, Makari again petitioned the Commissioner to grant the ’454 application a filing date of August 4, 1959, relying on 35 U.S.C. § 26 . 1 Assistant Commissioner Reynolds denied that petition on March 22, 1965, stating that “Section 26 of Title 35 of the United…”
Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 11 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Va. 2014). “”); see 35 U.S.C. § 26 (“Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified manner may be provisionally accepted by the Director despite a defective execution, provided a properly…”
A. F. Stoddard & Co., Ltd. v. C. Marshall Dann, Comm'r of Patents, 564 F.2d 556 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “V 1975)), and permits the correction of some defects in filing oaths and declarations ( 35 U.S.C. § 26 (Supp. V 1975)). Apart from its being unique, therefore, the correction sought herein is not as startling as it may at first blush seem.”
In re Precious Diamonds, Inc., 635 F.2d 845 (C.C.P.A. 1980). “We note that the parties have not argued the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 26 , which provides: Effect of defective execution Any document to be filed in the Patent and Trademark Office and which is required by any law, rule, or other regulation to be executed in a specified…”
Schenley Indus., Inc. v. E. Martinoni Co., Joseph S. Finch & Co. v. E. Martinoni Co., 408 F.2d 1049 (C.C.P.A. 1969). “They draw our attention to certain powers of the Commissioner to accept defectively executed papers pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 26 : Effect of Defective Execution.”
Sturzinger v. Comm'r of Patents, 377 F. Supp. 1284 (D.D.C. 1974). “At the outset it should be emphasized that de *1286 spite lengthy argument by both parties, the Court in its decision intimates no opinion whatsoever as to the scope or effect of 35 U.S.C. §§ 26 or 118, or their possible application to the situation here.”
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.