[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 54 (Friday, March 20, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13510-13519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05564]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
37 CFR Part 1
[Docket No. PTO-P-2025-0008]
RIN 0651-AD85
Required Use by Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent
Practitioner
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or
Office) is amending the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases to require
patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located
within the United States (U.S.) or its territories (hereinafter foreign
applicants/inventors and patent owners) to be represented by a
registered patent practitioner. A requirement that foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners be represented by a registered patent
practitioner will bring the U.S. in line with most other countries that
require that such parties be represented by a licensed or registered
person of that country. Additionally, this requirement will increase
efficiency and enable the USPTO to more effectively use available
mechanisms to enforce compliance by all foreign applicants/inventors
and patent owners with U.S. statutory and regulatory requirements in
patent matters, and enhance the USPTO's ability to respond to false
certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.
DATES: This rule is effective on July 20, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Polutta, Senior Legal Advisor, at
(571) 272-7709, or Andrew St. Clair, Legal Advisor, at (571) 270-0238,
of the Office of Patent Legal Administration or via email addressed to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Pursuant to its authority under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), the USPTO is
revising the rules in part 1 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations to require foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners
to be represented by a registered patent practitioner, as defined in 37
CFR 1.32(a)(1) (i.e., a registered patent attorney or registered patent
agent under 37 CFR 11.6 or an individual given limited recognition
under Sec. 11.9(a) or (b) or Sec. 11.16) (hereinafter, registered
patent practitioner). Requiring all foreign applicants/inventors and
patent owners to be represented by a registered patent practitioner:
(1) treats foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners similarly to
how U.S. applicants/inventors and patent owners are treated in other
countries and harmonizes U.S. practice with the rest of the world; (2)
increases efficiency as the USPTO spends significant resources
assisting pro se applicants (i.e., an applicant who is prosecuting the
application without a registered patent practitioner); (3) enables the
USPTO to more effectively use available mechanisms to enforce
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements in patent
matters; and (4) enhances the USPTO's ability to respond to false
certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.
A. Harmonization of U.S. Practice With Other Intellectual Property (IP)
Offices With Respect to Representation
Almost all IP Offices require foreign applicants/inventors and
patent owners to be represented by a person licensed or registered in
that country. The USPTO is implementing a similar requirement.
Requiring foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners to be
represented by a registered patent practitioner helps to harmonize
patent filing practice across IP Offices.
B. Increase Efficiency
The USPTO utilizes significant resources assisting pro se
inventors. Requiring foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners to
use registered patent practitioners will increase efficiency, as the
applications will be in better form for examination. Applications from
pro se inventors generally require additional processing by the Office
of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) because the application papers
are often not in condition for publication, examination, or both.
Additionally, pro se applications usually require patent examiners to
spend additional examination time on procedural matters, thereby
increasing overall patent application pendency. Implementing this final
rule will help allocate USPTO resources to the merits of examination
and, accordingly, decrease patent application processing times.
C. Enforce Compliance With U.S. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
The requirement for representation by a registered patent
practitioner is also necessary to enforce compliance by all foreign
patent applicants/inventors and patent owners with U.S. statutory and
regulatory requirements in patent matters. Registered patent
practitioners are subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
and disciplinary sanctions for violations of those rules. See 37 CFR
11.15, 11.20, and 11.100-11.901. Accordingly, registered patent
practitioners have, among others, various ethical obligations to the
USPTO, including a duty to cooperate with inquiries and investigations.
See, e.g., 37 CFR 11.303 and 11.801.
The USPTO has seen an increase in the number of false micro entity
certifications to claim a reduction in fees and other false
certification documents being filed. False certifications unjustly
diminish the monetary resources of the USPTO, and false certifications
on petitions or requests to expedite examination result in applications
being unjustly advanced out of turn. Requiring submissions to be made
by registered patent practitioners subject to the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct and concomitant disciplinary sanctions imposed by
the USPTO Director will make it less likely that the submissions will
be signed by an unauthorized party or contain inaccurate or fraudulent
statements, particularly with regard to any certification of micro
entity status to claim a reduction in fees and any certification
relevant to expediting the application.
D. Fraud Mitigation and the Integrity of the U.S. Patent System
Requiring foreign patent applicants/inventors and patent owners to
use registered patent practitioners will also facilitate fraud
mitigation and protect the integrity of the U.S. patent system. As
discussed, registered patent practitioners have a duty to cooperate
with investigations and respond to lawful requests for information. See
37 CFR 11.801(b). Further, it is professional misconduct for a
registered patent
[[Page 13511]]
practitioner to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,
or misrepresentation. See 37 CFR 11.804(c). It is also professional
misconduct for a registered patent practitioner to engage in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. See 37 CFR
11.804(d). Because registered patent practitioners are subject to
disciplinary sanctions pursuant to 37 CFR 11.15 and 11.20, they have an
interest in responding to inquiries and investigations that extends
beyond the outcome of a particular application.
For example, the USPTO currently sends fee deficiency notices in
applications which appear to have false micro entity certifications,
and can also send requests for information or show cause orders in
applications in which an apparent misrepresentation has been made. In
patent applications with pro se inventor-applicants, abandonment of the
application effectively terminates the USPTO's ability to gather
information. If a subsequent application is filed on the same subject
matter, for example, by the same entity that made the false micro
entity certification in the abandoned application, it may be difficult
or impossible for the USPTO to establish that the applications are
commonly owned or otherwise attributable to the same parties. However,
when a registered patent practitioner is of record in the application
or files papers in the application, the ability of the USPTO to gather
information about the certifications or representations that were made
extends beyond abandonment of the application. Therefore, requiring
foreign patent applicants/inventors and patent owners to use registered
patent practitioners will facilitate fraud mitigation and protect the
integrity of the U.S. patent system.
II. Enforcement
Unsigned or improperly signed papers are not entered into the
record of the application or patent. See, e.g., Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) 714.01. As such, when representation by a
registered patent practitioner is required, papers such as amendments
and other replies, application data sheets, information disclosure
statements, or petitions, will not be entered unless they are signed by
a registered patent practitioner. This does not apply to papers which
are required to be signed by a specific party, such as the inventor's
oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63.
The definition of the term ``domicile'' is provided in 37 CFR
1.9(p). The domicile of an inventor-applicant will normally be
determined by the residence information provided in the application
data sheet (ADS) under 37 CFR 1.76, or the inventor's oath or
declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The domicile of an applicant who is not
an inventor will normally be determined based on the mailing address
provided in the Applicant Information section of the ADS. If an ADS is
inconsistent with the information provided in another document that was
submitted at the same time or prior to the ADS submission, the ADS will
control. See 37 CFR 1.76(d). This is because the ADS is intended to be
the means by which an applicant provides complete bibliographic
information. In some instances, the USPTO may refer to sources other
than those listed above in order to assess compliance with the domicile
requirement, including sources of information that are not present in
the patent application file. For example, in order to determine whether
the domicile is accurate, the USPTO may refer to the notarized Patent
Electronic System Verification Form (PTO-2042a) or other identity
verification information. The Patent Electronic System Verification
Form is a document which may be sent to the Electronic Business Center
(EBC) during the process of obtaining a registered Patent Center
account.
For international applications having an international filing date
on or after September 16, 2012, the international application enters
the national stage when the applicant has filed the documents and fees
required by 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1) and (2) within the period set in 37 CFR
1.495. See MPEP 1893.01. Therefore, documents and fees submitted to
comply with 35 U.S.C. 371(c) and/or (f) will be accepted as required by
statute. Additionally, processing of documents and fees by the PCT
Receiving Office, International Searching Authority, International
Preliminary Examining Authority, or the International Bureau as
provided for by the Patent Cooperation Treaty is not affected by this
rule.
A paper filed on behalf of the patent owner may indicate the
domicile of the patent owner if such information is not present in the
application file. When it is necessary for the USPTO to act on a paper
submitted in the file of an issued patent and the paper is not signed
by a registered patent practitioner, the paper may not be treated on
its merits. For example, if a petition to accept unintentionally
delayed payment of a maintenance fee in an expired patent under 37 CFR
1.378(b) is filed that is not signed by a registered patent
practitioner, the petition may be dismissed before consideration on the
merits if it cannot be determined whether the paper complies with 37
CFR 1.31 and 1.33(b).
Regarding the assessment of compliance referred to above,
applicants, patent owners, and practitioners are reminded that the
presentation to the Office of any paper by a party, whether a
practitioner or non-practitioner, constitutes a certification under 37
CFR 11.18(b). A misrepresentation of the domicile of an applicant or
patent owner would not be ``to the best of the party's knowledge,
information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances'' as required under 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2). Violations of 37
CFR 11.18(b)(2) by a party, whether a practitioner or non-practitioner,
may result in the imposition of sanctions under 37 CFR 11.18(c), which
may include termination of the proceedings. See 37 CFR 1.4(d)(5)(i).
III. Discussion of Specific Rules
By this final rule, the following sections to 37 CFR part 1 are
amended as follows:
A. Section 1.9
Section 1.9 is amended to add new paragraph (p) defining domicile
as the permanent legal place of residence of a natural person or the
principal place of business of a juristic entity. The domicile of an
inventor-applicant will normally be determined by the residence
information provided in the ADS under 37 CFR 1.76, or the inventor's
oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63. The domicile of an applicant who
is not an inventor will normally be determined based on the mailing
address provided in the Applicant Information section of the ADS. See
section II. above for further discussion.
B. Section 1.31
Section 1.31 is amended by revising the title and rule to include
``patent owner,'' and reformatting the rule language into paragraphs
(a) and (b). The section is further amended to indicate that an
applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42 or patent owner whose domicile is
not located within the U.S. or its territories must be represented by a
registered patent practitioner. The section is also amended to require
that a patent owner who is a juristic entity must be represented by a
registered patent practitioner. The section previously required a
juristic entity who was the applicant to be represented by a registered
patent practitioner, but has
[[Page 13512]]
now been expanded to make a similar requirement for patent owners.
The phrase ``an applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42'' in paragraph
(a) encompasses any inventor, joint inventor, legal representative,
person to whom the inventor has assigned, person to whom the inventor
is under an obligation to assign, or person who otherwise shows
sufficient proprietary interest in the matter who is named as an
applicant. Thus, an applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42 must be
represented by a registered patent practitioner if at least one of the
parties identified as the applicant has a domicile that is not located
within the U.S. or its territories. See Sec. 1.31(a)(2). As a
reminder, powers of attorney must be signed by all parties identified
as the applicant or patent owner in order to be effective.
C. Section 1.32
Section 1.32 is amended by adding the definition of patent
practitioner to partially parallel Sec. 11.10(a).
D. Section 1.33
Section 1.33 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to indicate
that, unless otherwise specified, amendments and other papers filed in
an application or patent submitted on behalf of a juristic entity, an
applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42 whose domicile is not located within
the United States or its territories, or a patent owner whose domicile
is not located within the United States or its territories must be
signed by a patent practitioner. These revisions to paragraph (b)(3)
are consistent with the changes to Sec. 1.31, discussed above.
A foreign domiciled inventor who is the applicant may initially
file a U.S. patent application with the USPTO and pay the filing fee at
the time of filing. However, any application data sheet that
accompanies the application papers or is submitted later, as well as
all follow-on correspondence, must be signed by a patent practitioner.
A patent practitioner must also sign any request or petition that is
filed in such an application, including but not limited to a request
for prioritized examination and a petition to make special. To pay the
issue fee, PTOL-85 Part B is required by virtue of 37 CFR 1.33(b) in
order to indicate in the record that the fee was paid by a person
having authority to bind the applicant; therefore, the PTOL-85B would
also have to be signed by a patent practitioner when representation is
required.
IV. Comments and Responses
The USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
December 29, 2025, soliciting comments on the proposed changes to the
rules of practice to require foreign applicants/inventors to be
represented by a registered patent practitioner. See Required Use by
Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent Practitioner, 90 FR
60594. In response to the NPRM, the USPTO received nine (9) relevant
comments from a range of stakeholders. The USPTO received two (2)
comments from intellectual property (IP) organizations, one (1) comment
from a regulatory organization, one (1) from a law firm, four (4) from
individuals, and one (1) submitted anonymously. Overall, most of the
comments were supportive of implementing a requirement for foreign
applicants/inventors to be represented by a registered patent
practitioner, and included specific suggestions and questions. A
summary of the comments and the USPTO's responses thereto follow:
Comment #1: Several comments requested that the Office confirm that
the requirement for using a U.S. practitioner would not impact the
accordance of a filing date.
Response #1: This rule does not change the requirements for
receiving a filing date. Under current procedure, an application which
is received without a signature or with an improper signature is
accorded a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53. Consistent with
this procedure, when the new requirements herein are in effect, an
application with a foreign-domiciled applicant but without the
signature of a registered patent practitioner will be accorded a filing
date under the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.53. Papers that do not
include a practitioner's signature when one is required may require
corrective action thereafter.
Comment #2: One comment suggested that the rule change should not
apply to foreign domiciled inventors with U.S. citizenship and should
not apply to applications with mixed-domicile applicant groups.
Response #2: The USPTO does not collect information on citizenship.
Verification of citizenship would necessitate the collection of
sensitive protected personal data such as birth certificates or
passports, which in turn imparts a significant risk and administrative
burden on the USPTO. The allocation of resources to processes for
evaluating citizenship would impede the ability to allocate resources
to the merits of examination. Notably, the requirement to be
represented by a registered patent practitioner does not concern
substantive issues of patentability, and the USPTO already requires
U.S. citizens to be represented by a registered patent practitioner
when an application names a juristic entity applicant. Regarding mixed-
domicile applicant groups, providing such an exception would diminish
the benefits associated with requiring representation by a registered
patent practitioner. Additionally, providing an exception for mixed-
domicile applicant groups would create a new incentive to misrepresent
or manipulate the inventorship in an application, in that adding a
single inventor-applicant could avoid the requirement to be represented
by a registered patent practitioner.
Comment #3: Several comments requested that the Office provide a
transition period and provide notice to applicants with information
such as a link to obtain a practitioner list maintained by the Office.
Response #3: This rule becomes effective 120 days after publication
in the Federal Register, which is an amount of advanced notice selected
to permit foreign-domiciled applicants to obtain representation.
The OED register of active patent practitioners who are eligible to
represent others before the USPTO is available here: https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/practitionerSearchEntry. The Office cannot aid in
the selection of a patent practitioner.
Comment #4: Two comments requested that the Office clarify or
review the definition of domicile in 37 CFR 1.9(p). One comment
observes that a person may have multiple legal residences. Another
observes that the phrase ``principal place of business'' is well-known
in the context of a statute involving jurisdiction.
Response #4: New rule 37 CFR 1.9(p) provides that 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. The Office expects that it would be a rare occurrence for there
to be a genuine ambiguity about whether a person is foreign-domiciled.
In an instance in which a person has multiple legal residences both
within and outside the United States, the phrase ``permanent legal
place of residence'' in 37 CFR 1.9(p) can resolve any ambiguity because
it is consistent with and would apply the same principles for
determining permanent residence for purposes of being a U.S. tax
resident. See 26 U.S.C. 7701. It is also noted that all juristic
entities are already required to be represented by a registered patent
practitioner, regardless of domicile.
Comment #5: One comment in favor of the proposed changes to the
rules also
[[Page 13513]]
requested that the Office revise 37 CFR 11.6(c) to discontinue
reciprocity with Canadian practitioners.
Response #5: This rulemaking does not address the standards for
becoming a registered patent practitioner, and at this time the USPTO
does not plan to modify the reciprocity provision of 37 CFR 11.6(c).
Comment #6: One comment provides arguments contending that the new
rules should not be applied to provisional applications, and that the
benefits discussed herein are not relevant with respect to provisional
applications.
Response #6: The effect of the requirement for representation on
provisional applications is expected to be minimal. As discussed above,
an application with a foreign-domiciled applicant but without the
signature of a registered patent practitioner will be accorded a filing
date under the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.53; this includes
provisional applications. In the rare instances in which a filing in a
provisional application requires processing, such as a petition to
revive or a petition to change inventorship, representation will be
required for foreign-domiciled applicants for the reasons set forth
herein.
Comment #7: One comment argues that the USPTO should not go forward
with the rule and that the rule is unfairly discriminatory and may
cause foreign inventors to decide against filing patent applications in
the U.S.
Response #7: The USPTO believes requiring foreign applicants/
inventors to be represented by a registered patent practitioner will
(1) treat foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners similarly to
how U.S. applicants/inventors and patent owners are treated in other
countries and harmonize U.S. practice with the rest of the world; (2)
increase efficiency, as the USPTO spends extra resources to assist pro
se applicants; (3) enable the USPTO to more effectively use available
mechanisms to enforce compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements in patent matters; and (4) enhance the USPTO's ability to
respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.
Although it is appreciated that some parties are opposed to the new
requirement for representation, the above-stated benefits justify the
implementation of these regulations.
V. Implementation
Beginning on the effective date of this final rule, patent
applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located within the
United States (U.S.) or its territories (hereinafter foreign
applicants/inventors and patent owners) are required to be represented
by a registered patent practitioner. This requirement is applicable to
all filings including new application filings, amendments, replies, and
other papers received on or after the effective date, and there will
not be a distinction based on the effective filing date of an
application or the like. When an application is filed by a foreign
inventor or applicant without the signature of a registered patent
practitioner, the Office may mail a notice which also informs the
inventor or applicant of the requirement for obtaining a practitioner.
When necessary, based on the papers received, the notice will set a
time period for response. The notice will include a link to a USPTO web
page to assist inventors/applicants in finding a registered patent
practitioner.
Applications filed by foreign-domiciled applicants will be accorded
a filing date, as this rule does not change the requirements for
receiving a filing date. Under current procedure, an application which
is received without a signature or with an improper signature is
accorded a filing date as set forth in 37 CFR 1.53. Consistent with
this procedure, when the new requirements herein are in effect, an
application with a foreign-domiciled applicant but without the
signature of a registered patent practitioner will be accorded a filing
date under the conditions set forth in 37 CFR 1.53. Papers that do not
include a practitioner's signature when one is required may necessitate
corrective action.
The Application Data Sheet (ADS) and micro entity certification
form will not be accepted if signed by an inventor or applicant whose
domicile is in a foreign country. In such cases, the ADS and micro
entity certification form must be signed by a registered patent
practitioner.
When an application is filed by a foreign inventor/applicant and it
includes an ADS that is not signed by a registered patent practitioner,
the ADS will be treated as a transmittal letter in accordance with 37
CFR 1.76(e). Thus, inventorship will not be set nor will benefit or
priority claims be effective.
A foreign-domiciled inventor or applicant can pay the filing fees;
however, to establish micro entity status, a registered patent
practitioner must sign the micro entity certification. A fee may be
paid in the micro entity amount only if it is submitted with, or
subsequent to, the submission of a certification of entitlement to
micro entity status. See 37 CFR 1.29(f) and MPEP 509.04(I). Therefore,
in applications for which representation by a registered patent
practitioner is required, payment of fees in micro entity amounts will
require there to be representation by a registered patent practitioner.
Payment of the basic filing fee, search fee, or examination fee after
the original filing date will incur the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.16(f), and for provisional applications payment of the basic filing
fee after the original filing date will incur the surcharge set forth
in 37 CFR 1.16(g).
The lack of entry of a paper due to the lack of signature of a
registered patent practitioner may require corrective action, depending
on the circumstances of the application and the type of paper at issue.
For example, if an ADS is treated as a transmittal letter in accordance
with 37 CFR 1.76(e), a benefit or priority claim presented therein will
not be entered; depending on the timing of when a proper ADS is
submitted, a petition for delayed benefit claim under 37 CFR 1.78(c) or
(e) or a petition for delayed priority claim under 37 CFR 1.55(e) may
be necessary. As discussed above, in instances in which it is
determined that representation by a registered patent practitioner is
required, the Office may mail a notice which notifies the applicant of
the determination. In instances where it is believed that this
determination is erroneous, the applicant may submit a reply which
addresses the issue of domicile. A reply which addresses the issue of
domicile will be considered on the merits even when the applicant has
not obtained representation, because such consideration is necessary to
evaluate the propriety of the initial decision. In the event that a
reply addresses the issue of domicile and also includes secondary
remarks regarding other outstanding requirements, the USPTO will not
necessarily address the secondary remarks if the determination of
foreign-domicile is maintained. For example, if an applicant receives a
notice which states that representation by a registered patent
practitioner is required based on the domicile of the applicant, and
also states that the drawings contain formal defects, a reply may be
submitted which traverses both determinations. In this example, if the
remarks traversing the representation requirement are unpersuasive, the
USPTO will not necessarily consider nor respond to the remarks
regarding the drawing formalities because treating all remarks on the
merits would undermine the efficacy of the representation requirement.
In this scenario, the time period for response will continue to run.
Regarding the issue of traversing a determination that an applicant
or
[[Page 13514]]
patent owner is foreign-domiciled, it is noted that the USPTO may
require evidence in order to change an initial determination. For
example, in the event that an applicant is determined to be foreign-
domiciled based on information available to the USPTO, the submission
of a reply which merely includes conclusory and/or unsubstantiated
statements about the domicile of the applicant will not be sufficient
to change the determination.
The procedures regarding a bona fide attempt to advance an
application to final action as set forth in 37 CFR 1.135(c) are not
modified by this rulemaking.
Notwithstanding the ability to obtain a filing date, the
representation requirement for foreign-domiciled applicants is
applicable on the original date of filing. In some instances, the
failure to comply with the representation requirement on the original
filing date may cause a result which cannot be remediated in a
particular application. For example, a request for the application not
to publish as set forth in 37 CFR 1.213 or a request for prioritized
examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e)(1) is required to be submitted with
the original filing of the application. In the event that such a
request is not accepted because it is improperly signed due to lack of
compliance with the representation requirement, it is not possible to
subsequently meet the requirements for the request in that application.
The payment of maintenance fees by a person or organization other
than the patentee is specifically provided for by 37 CFR 1.366(a).
Therefore, this rulemaking does not impose any new requirement with
respect to the payment of maintenance fees, and the USPTO will not
consider the domicile of a patent owner with regard to acceptance of
maintenance fees.
VI. Rulemaking Considerations
A. Administrative Procedure Act
This final rule revises the procedures governing the representation
of patent applicants and patent owners at the USPTO. The changes in
this final rule do not change the substantive criteria of
patentability. Therefore, the changes in this rulemaking involve rules
of agency practice and procedure and/or interpretive rules and do not
require notice-and-comment rulemaking, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)).
See Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 97, 101 (2015)
(explaining that interpretive rules ``advise the public of the agency's
construction of the statutes and rules which it administers'' and do
not require notice-and-comment when issued or amended); Cooper Techs.
Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 1330, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (5 U.S.C. 553,
and thus 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(B), do not require notice-and-comment
rulemaking for ``interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice''); In re Chestek
PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (noting that rule changes
that ``do[ ] not alter the substantive standards by which the USPTO
evaluates trademark applications'' are procedural in nature and thus
``exempted from notice-and-comment rulemaking.''); and JEM Broadcasting
Co. v. F.C.C., 22 F.3d 320, 328 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (``[T]he `critical
feature' of the procedural exception [in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)] `is that
it covers agency actions that do not themselves alter the rights or
interests of parties, although [they] may alter the manner in which the
parties present themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.' ''
(quoting Batterton v. Marshall, 648 F.2d 694, 707 (D.C. Cir. 1980))).
Nevertheless, the USPTO chose to seek public comment before
implementing the rule to benefit from the public's input.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
As prior notice and an opportunity for public comment are not
required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law, neither a
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis nor a certification under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) is required.
See 5 U.S.C. 603. Nevertheless, the USPTO published an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), along with the NPRM, on
December 29, 2025 (90 FR 60594). The USPTO publishes this Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to complete its examination of
the impact of the USPTO's changes to require foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners to be represented by a registered patent
practitioner. The USPTO received no comments from the public directly
applicable to the IFRA, as stated below in Item 2.
Items 1-6 below discuss the six items specified in 5 U.S.C.
604(a)(1)-(6) to be addressed in a FRFA. Item 6 below discusses
alternatives considered by the USPTO.
1. A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule:
The USPTO is revising the rules to require that foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners be represented by a registered patent
practitioner, as defined in 37 CFR 1.32(a)(1). An ``applicant'' is the
person applying for a patent, and can be any inventor, joint inventor,
legal representative, person to whom the inventor has assigned, person
to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign, or person who
otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter who is
named as an applicant. Under this amended rule, foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners must be represented by a registered patent
practitioner if at least one of the parties identified as an applicant
or a patent owner has a domicile that is not located within the U.S. or
its territories. A patent practitioner as defined in 37 CFR 1.32(a)(1)
means a registered patent attorney or registered patent agent under 37
CFR 11.6 or an individual given limited recognition under Sec. 11.9(a)
or (b) or Sec. 11.16. When representation by a registered patent
practitioner is required, papers such as amendments and other replies,
application data sheets, information disclosure statements, or
petitions will not be entered unless they are signed by a registered
patent practitioner; papers that are required to be signed by a
specific party, such as the inventor's oath or declaration under 37 CFR
1.63, are excluded. The requirement for a registered patent
practitioner is applicable to all types of patent applications (i.e.,
utility, plant, design, etc.). This rule brings the United States in
line with most other countries that require that such parties be
represented by a licensed or registered person of that country.
Additionally, this rule increases efficiency and enables the USPTO to
more effectively use available mechanisms to enforce compliance by all
foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners with U.S. statutory and
regulatory requirements in patent matters, and enhances the USPTO's
ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and
fraud. The rule is also amended to require that a patent owner who is a
juristic entity must be represented by a registered patent
practitioner. The rule previously required a juristic entity who was
the applicant to be represented by a registered patent practitioner,
and has now been expanded to make explicit a similar requirement for
patent owners.
2. A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in response to the IRFA, a statement of the assessment of the
Agency of such issues, and a statement of any changes made in the
proposed rule as a result of such comments:
The USPTO did not receive any public comments in response to the
IRFA. However, the USPTO received comments about the proposed
requirement for representation, which are discussed in the preamble.
[[Page 13515]]
3. The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response
to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change made to
the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the comments:
The USPTO did not receive any comments filed by the Chief Counsel
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in response to the
proposed rule.
4. A description of and an estimate of the number of small entities
to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such estimate
is available:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size
standards that are applicable to most analyses conducted to comply with
the RFA are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. These regulations generally
define small businesses as those with fewer than a specified maximum
number of employees or less than a specified level of annual receipts
for the entity's industrial sector or North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code. As provided by the RFA, and after
consulting with the SBA, the USPTO formally adopted an alternate size
standard for the purpose of conducting an analysis or making a
certification under the RFA for patent-related regulations. See
Business Size Standard for Purposes of United States Patent and
Trademark Office Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related
Regulations, 71 FR 67109 (Nov. 20, 2006), 1313 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 60
(Dec. 12, 2006). The USPTO's alternate small business size standard is
SBA's previously established size standard that identifies the criteria
entities must meet to be entitled to pay reduced patent fees. See 13
CFR 121.802.
If patent applicants assert or certify entitlement for reduced
patent fees, the USPTO captures this data in its patent application
data repository (formerly the Patent Application Locating and
Monitoring (PALM) system and now called the One Patent Service Gateway
(OPSG) system), which tracks information on each patent application
submitted to the USPTO.
Unlike the SBA small business size standards set forth in 13 CFR
121.201, the size standard for the USPTO is not industry specific. The
USPTO's definition of a small business concern for RFA purposes is a
business or other concern that: (1) meets the SBA's definition of a
``business concern or concern'' set forth in 13 CFR 121.105; and (2)
meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of
paying reduced patent fees, namely, an entity: (a) whose number of
employees, including affiliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and (b)
which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no
obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made
it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any
concern that would not qualify as a nonprofit organization or a small
business concern under this definition. See Business Size Standard for
Purposes of United States Patent and Trademark Office Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis for Patent-Related Regulations, 71 FR at 67112
(Nov. 20, 2006), 1313 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office at 63 (Dec. 12, 2006).
Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, the USPTO defines small
entities to include applicants/inventors and patent owners who pay
``small'' or ``micro'' entity fees at the USPTO.
In fiscal year (FY) 2022, the USPTO received 512,038 patent
applications.\1\ As discussed earlier, this final rule impacts those
applications from foreign applicants/inventors or patent owners who are
not represented by a registered patent practitioner. An applicant is
considered to be a foreign applicant/inventor or patent owner if at
least one party who was identified as an applicant or a patent owner
had a domicile that was not located within the U.S. or its territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year (FY) 2022 data is being used for this analysis
to correspond with the most current available estimates of legal
costs as published by American Intellectual Property Law Association
in its 2023 Report on the Economic Survey. Patent application data
show that filing trends in FY 2023 and FY 2024 have been consistent
with FY 2022, with filings in FY 2023 totaling 516,915 and filings
in FY 2024 totaling 527,538.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in Table 1 below, of the total 512,038 patent applications
filed in FY 2022, 215,459 (42.1%) were filed by U.S. applicants/
inventors and patent owners, and 296,579 (57.9%) were filed by foreign
applicants/inventors and patent owners.
Table 1--Filings From Foreign or U.S. Applicants as a Percentage of
Total Filings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicant FY 2022 Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
US............................................ 215,459 42.1
Foreign....................................... 296,579 57.9
-------------------------
Total..................................... 512,038 100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 below shows the number of applications that were filed
without a registered patent practitioner (i.e., pro se) and those that
were filed with a registered patent practitioner, in addition to the
entity status of the applicant(s). Of the total 296,579 filings made by
a foreign applicant/inventor or patent owner, 295,362 were represented
by a registered patent practitioner (foreign represented) and 1,217
were not represented by a registered patent practitioner (foreign pro
se).\2\ The 1,217 foreign pro se applications will be impacted by the
requirement to retain representation by a registered patent
practitioner under this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An application is determined to be pro se if there are no
current attorney(s) associated with the application or if no
attorney(s) has been directly associated with the application over
the application's prosecution history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The USPTO anticipates that this final rule will not have a
substantial impact on foreign small entities. Of the total 295,362
foreign represented applications, 75,111 are considered to be small
entities for the purposes of this analysis because they paid the
``small'' or ``micro'' entity fee (``foreign represented small
entities''), and of the 1,217 foreign pro se applications, 1,102 are
considered to be small entities because they paid the ``small'' or
``micro'' entity fee (``foreign pro se small entities''). The USPTO
acknowledges that representation status in an application is dynamic,
and some number of applicants change their status of representation
after filing by either retaining a registered patent practitioner or
separating from a registered patent practitioner and proceeding pro se.
For the purposes of this analysis, the USPTO assumes that the 1,102
applications filed by foreign pro se small entities did not change
their representation status and thus will be subject to the requirement
to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. This final rule
is not expected to significantly impact foreign small entities, as the
vast majority are represented by a registered patent practitioner. Only
1,102 foreign pro se small entities, or 1.4% of the 76,213 total
foreign small entities filing patent applications, will be affected.
[[Page 13516]]
Table 2--Total # of Applications Filed in FY 2022
[Per OPPDA data obtained in June 2025]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application type Undisc. Small Micro Total Percentage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Pro Se............................................... 1,664 1,747 2,180 5,591 1.09 215,459
US Represented.......................................... 129,805 67,318 12,745 209,868 40.99
Foreign Pro Se.......................................... 115 490 612 1,217 .24 296,579
Foreign Represented..................................... 220,251 60,720 14,391 295,362 57.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.............................................. 351,835 130,275 29,928 512,038 100.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any registered patent practitioner retained by the foreign
applicants/inventors and patent owners as a result of this final rule
will be required to be a registered patent attorney or registered
patent agent under 37 CFR 11.6 or an individual given limited
recognition under Sec. 11.9(a) or (b) or Sec. 11.16.
5. A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and
other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of the
classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and
the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report
or record:
The final rule imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements. Compliance with the rule will be enforced by requiring an
appropriate signature on papers submitted in patent matters.
6. A description of the steps the Agency has taken to minimize the
significant economic impact on small entities consistent with the
stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a statement of the
factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative
adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant
alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which affect the
impact on small entities was rejected:
The USPTO chose the alternative of requiring foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners to be represented by a registered patent
practitioner because it will enable the USPTO to achieve its goals
effectively and efficiently. Those goals are to (1) enable the USPTO to
more effectively use available mechanisms to enforce compliance by all
foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners with U.S. statutory and
regulatory requirements in patent matters, and (2) enhance the USPTO's
ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and
fraud. Additionally, the final rule brings the United States in line
with most other countries that require that such parties be represented
by a licensed or registered person of that country.
Due to the difficulty in quantifying the intangible benefits
associated with the final rule, the USPTO provides a discussion of the
qualitative benefits to patent applicants/inventors and patent owners.
The primary benefits of the final rule are ensuring compliance by all
foreign patent applicants/inventors and patent owners with U.S.
statutory and regulatory requirements in patent matters, and
facilitating fraud mitigation and protecting the integrity of the U.S.
patent system. The USPTO has noticed an increase in the number of false
micro entity certifications to claim a reduction in fees and other
false certification documents being filed. False certifications
unjustly diminish the monetary resources of the USPTO, and false
certifications on petitions or requests to expedite examination result
in applications being unjustly advanced out of turn. Requiring
submissions to be made by registered patent practitioners subject to
the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and concomitant disciplinary
sanctions imposed by the USPTO Director will make it less likely that
the submissions will be signed by an unauthorized party or contain
inaccurate or fraudulent statements, particularly with regard to any
certification of micro entity status to claim a reduction in fees and
any certification relevant to expediting the application.
The final rule also addresses the problem of patent application
pendency. Pro se applications generally require additional processing
by the OPAP because the application papers are often not in condition
for publication, examination, or both. Additionally, pro se
applications usually require patent examiners to spend additional
examination time on procedural matters, thereby increasing overall
patent application pendency. This final rule will help allocate USPTO
resources to the merits of examination and, accordingly, decrease
patent application processing times. Requiring foreign applicants/
inventors and patent owners to use registered patent practitioners will
increase efficiency, as the applications will be in better form for
examination. Thus, the final rule will provide qualitative value to all
applicants/inventors and patent owners because this rule will help
allocate USPTO resources to the merits of examination and, accordingly,
generally decrease processing times for all patent applications.
The RFA requires agencies to consider the economic impact of their
regulatory proposals on small entities, specifically U.S. small
businesses, small governmental jurisdictions and small organizations.
This final rule will require all applicants/inventors and patent
owners, in which at least one party identified as the applicant or
patent owner has a foreign domicile, to be represented by a registered
patent practitioner. Although there will be some number of U.S.-
domiciled applicants/inventors and patent owners that will be affected
because at least one party identified as the applicant or patent owner
has a foreign domicile, the USPTO estimates that the number of foreign
pro se small entities impacted by this rule (1,102) is small when
compared to the 76,213 total foreign small entities that file patent
applications. The costs incurred by the 1,102 foreign pro se small
entities will vary depending on the nature of legal services provided
and complexity of the application.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 below provide the estimated costs for a U.S.
patent practitioner to prosecute an application based on professional
rates as reported by the American Intellectual Property Law Association
in the 2023 Report on the Economic Survey.\3\ The professional rates
\4\ shown below are the median charges in FY 2022 for legal services
rendered for a utility application.\5\ The
[[Page 13517]]
tables do not include services for which legal counsel is not required
(such as payment of maintenance fees) or services that are not part of
prosecution (such as ex parte reexamination, novelty search, validity
and infringement opinions, and reference management). The figures in
Tables 3 and 4 show the estimated legal cost for prosecuting
applications that are of minimal complexity as well as applications
that are relatively complex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Am. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n, Report of the Economic
Survey 43 (2023).
\4\ Copy, drawing, and government fees are not included in the
rates.
\5\ The Report on the Economic Survey provides professional
rates for legal services rendered only in utility applications.
Because the professional rates in utility applications typically
represent the upper range of legal costs, these rates will be used
as a proxy to calculate the costs for legal services rendered for
all applications, including plant and design applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 below provides the estimated cost to impacted entities if a
U.S. patent practitioner is retained prior to filing of a non-
provisional application. These cases include applications of foreign
origin where no substantive direction is provided by the foreign
attorney, and thus the patent practitioner would be required to provide
substantive legal advice to prosecute the application, including legal
services connected with preparing, filing, and prosecuting an
application. Based on the total estimated number of applications filed
by foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners that are also
considered to be small entities, the total legal cost for non-
provisional applications to comply with this final rule is estimated to
range from $13,124,820 to $13,334,200 for minimal complexity
applications, to $16,430,820 to $19,395,200 for relatively complex
applications.
Table 3--Cost for Legal Services by Performed U.S. Patent Practitioners (FY 22)
[Patents of U.S. origin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for relatively complex
Service Cost for minimal complexity applications (biotech/chemical;
applications electrical/ computer; mechanical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original (not divisional, continuation, $8,000 $10,000 to $12,000
or CIP) non-provisional application on
invention..............................
Application amendment/argument.......... $2,000 $3,000 to $3,500
Issuing an allowed application.......... $750 $750
Preparing and filing Information $360 to $550 $360 to $550
Disclosure Statement (IDS), less than
50 references and more than 50
references.............................
Patent Term Adjustment calculation...... $400 $400
Formalities, including preparing and $400 $400
filing formal declarations, assignment,
and powers of attorney, responding to
pre-examination notices and preparing
papers to make corrections.............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost................................ $11,910 to $12,100 $14,910 to $17,600
Pro Se Foreign Applicants/Inventors and 1,102 1,102
Patent Owners (Small Entities) Non-
Provisional............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................... $13,124,820 to $13,334,200 $16,430,820 to $19,395,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 below provides the estimated cost to impacted entities if a
U.S. patent practitioner is retained to file a non-provisional
application of foreign origin that is in condition for filing and in
which the foreign attorney provides substantive direction. In these
cases, the U.S. patent practitioner would provide only minimal legal
services connected with the initial filing of an application and the
subsequent filing of other documents. Based on the total estimated
number of applications filed by foreign applicants/inventors and patent
owners that are also considered to be small entities, the total legal
cost for a non-provisional application to comply with this final rule
is estimated to range from $4,336,370 to $4,545,750 for minimal
complexity applications, to $5,190,420 to $5,399,800 for relatively
complex applications.
Table 4--Cost for Legal Services Performed by U.S. Patent Practitioners (FY 22)
[Patents of foreign origin]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost for relatively complex
Service Cost for minimal complexity applications (biotech/chemical;
applications electrical/ computer; mechanical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing in USPTO, received ready for $1,200 $1,200
filing.................................
Application amendment/argument, where $1,225 $2,000
foreign counsel or client provides
detailed response instructions.........
Issuing an allowed application.......... $750 $750
Preparing and filing Information $360 to $550 $360 to $550
Disclosure Statement (IDS), less than
50 references and more than 50
references.............................
Formalities, including preparing and $400 $400
filing formal declarations, assignment,
and powers of attorney, responding to
pre-examination notices and preparing
papers to make corrections.............
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................... $3,935 to $4,125 $4,710 to $4,900
Pro Se Foreign Applicants/Inventors and 1,102 1,102
Patent Owners (Small Entities) Non-
Provisional............................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost.......................... $4,336,370 to $4,545,750 $5,190,420 to $5,399,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13518]]
Table 5 below provides a list of services that may be provided to
impacted entities before or during prosecution, but are dependent on
the nature of the application. The prosecution of a patent application
is highly variable and a particular application may or may not require
any of these services. If these services are provided, then the costs
below would be added to the total legal costs in Tables 3 or 4, as
applicable. The table below provides the percentage of all applications
that have utilized these services.
Table 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applications
Service Cost utilizing service Percentage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeal to Board with/without oral argument.......... $5,000 to $8,000 8,205 2
Preparing and filing formal drawings................ $600 30,822 6
Preparing for and conducting examination interview.. $1,000 176,908 35
Providing a continuation recommendation (including $1,000 151,130 30
proposed claim strategy)...........................
Filing previously prepared US applications as PCT $1,090 57,112 11
application in US..................................
Entering National Stage in US Receiving Office from $1,200 108,855 21
foreign Origin PCT application.....................
Provisional application............................. $3,900 to $5,000 147,275 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen above, the USPTO estimates that only 1,102 (or 1.4%)
foreign pro se small entities will be impacted by this final rule. This
is a very small number when compared to the 76,213 total foreign small
entities that file patent applications. Although the number of impacted
small entities is not expected to be substantial, the economic impact
varies depending on the nature of legal services provided and
complexity of the application. Because prosecution of patent
applications is highly variable, the legal costs incurred by the 1,102
foreign pro se small entities would depend on whether the application
is of U.S. origin or foreign origin, with applications of U.S. origin
incurring more cost than those of foreign origin, and the level of
complexity of the application, with relatively complex applications
incurring higher costs than minimally complex applications. Legal costs
would increase if any of the additional available services are utilized
before or during prosecution.
The USPTO considered the alternative of taking no action and
maintaining the status quo (``Alternative 1''). Alternative 1 was
rejected because the USPTO has determined that the requirement that
foreign applicants/inventors and patent owners be represented by a
registered patent practitioner is needed to accomplish the stated
objectives to increase efficiency and enable the USPTO to more
effectively use available mechanisms to enforce compliance with U.S.
statutory and regulatory requirements in patent matters, and to enhance
the USPTO's ability to respond to false certifications,
misrepresentations, and fraud.
C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)
This rulemaking has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866 (September 30, 1993).
D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)
The USPTO has complied with Executive Order 13563 (January 18,
2011). Specifically, and as discussed above, the USPTO has, to the
extent feasible and applicable: (1) reasonably determined that the
benefits of the rule justify its costs; (2) tailored the rule to impose
the least burden on society consistent with obtaining the agency's
regulatory objectives; (3) selected a regulatory approach that
maximizes net benefits; (4) specified performance objectives; (5)
identified and assessed available alternatives; (6) involved the public
in an open exchange of information and perspectives among experts in
relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and
the public as a whole, and provided online access to the rulemaking
docket; (7) attempted to promote coordination, simplification, and
harmonization across government agencies and identified goals designed
to promote innovation; (8) considered approaches that reduce burdens
while maintaining flexibility and freedom of choice for the public; and
(9) ensured the objectivity of scientific and technological information
and processes.
E. Executive Order 14192 (Deregulation)
This regulation is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because it is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This rulemaking pertains strictly to federal agency procedures and
does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to
warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under Executive Order
13132 (August 4, 1999).
G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal Consultation)
This rulemaking will not: (1) have substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes; (2) impose substantial direct compliance
costs on Indian tribal governments; or (3) preempt tribal law.
Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required under
Executive Order 13175 (November 6, 2000).
H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rulemaking is not a significant energy action under Executive
Order 13211 because this rulemaking is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
Therefore, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required under
Executive Order 13211 (May 18, 2001).
I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This rulemaking meets applicable standards to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden as set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (February 5, 1996).
J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)
This rulemaking does not concern an environmental risk to health or
safety that may disproportionately affect children under Executive
Order 13045 (April 21, 1997).
K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
This rulemaking will not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under
[[Page 13519]]
Executive Order 12630 (March 15, 1988).
L. Congressional Review Act
Under the Congressional Review Act provisions of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.),
the USPTO will submit a report containing the final rule and other
required information to the United States Senate, the United States
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the Government
Accountability Office. The changes in this rulemaking are not expected
to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a
major increase in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets. Therefore, this
rulemaking is not expected to result in a ``major rule'' as defined in
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The changes set forth in this rulemaking do not involve a Federal
intergovernmental mandate that will result in the expenditure by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, of $100 million (as
adjusted) or more in any one year, or a Federal private sector mandate
that will result in the expenditure by the private sector of $100
million (as adjusted) or more in any one year, and will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no
actions are necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
N. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
This rulemaking will not have any effect on the quality of the
environment and is thus categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
The requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not
applicable because this rulemaking does not contain provisions that
involve the use of technical standards.
P. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
requires that the USPTO consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public. The collection of
information involved in this final rule has been reviewed and
previously approved by OMB under control number 0651-0035. The USPTO is
submitting an update to the 0651-0035 information collection in the
form of a non-substantive change request.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required
to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure
to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements
of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Q. E-Government Act Compliance
The USPTO is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to
promote the use of the internet and other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Biologics, Courts, Freedom
of information, Inventions and patents, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Small businesses.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the USPTO amends 37 CFR
part 1 as follows:
PART 1--RULES OF PRACTICE IN PATENT CASES
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2), unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.9 by adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9 Definitions.
* * * * *
(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.
0
3. Revise Sec. 1.31 to read as follows:
Sec. 1.31 Applicant and patent owner may be represented by one or
more patent practitioners or joint inventors.
(a) An applicant for patent or patent owner may file and prosecute
the applicant's or patent owner's own case, or the applicant or patent
owner may give power of attorney so as to be represented by one or more
patent practitioners or joint inventors, except that the following
persons or entities must be represented by a patent practitioner:
(1) a juristic entity (e.g., organizational assignee);
(2) an applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42, in which the domicile of
at least one of the parties identified as the applicant in the
application is not located within the United States or its territories;
and
(3) a patent owner, in which the domicile of at least one of the
parties identified as the patent owner is not located within the United
States or its territories.
(b) The Office cannot aid in the selection of a patent
practitioner.
0
4. Amend Sec. 1.32 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.32 Power of attorney.
(a) * * *
(1) Patent practitioner means a practitioner registered under Sec.
11.6 or an individual given limited recognition under Sec. 11.9(a) or
(b) or Sec. 11.16. Only these persons are permitted to represent
others before the Office in patent matters. An attorney or agent
registered under Sec. 11.6(d) may only act as a practitioner in design
patent applications or other design patent matters or design patent
proceedings.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 1.33 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.33 Correspondence respecting patent applications, patent
reexamination proceedings, and other proceedings.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) The applicant (Sec. 1.42) or patent owner. Unless otherwise
specified, all papers submitted on behalf of a juristic entity, an
applicant as defined in Sec. 1.42 in which the domicile of at least
one of the parties identified as the applicant is not located within
the United States or its territories, or a patent owner in which the
domicile of at least one of the parties identified as the patent owner
is not located within the United States or its territories must be
signed by a patent practitioner.
* * * * *
John A. Squires,
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of
the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
[FR Doc. 2026-05564 Filed 3-19-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-16-P