As more states order their residents to stay at home to minimize the spread of the coronavirus, the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak continue to mandate a significant change in business conduct. Working from home may mean working without convenient access to common office equipment such as printers and scanners. As such, the situation lends itself to taking advantage of the USPTO’s acceptance of electronic “S-signatures” wherein documents can be signed without being printed.
Each inventor named on a patent application filed with the USPTO must sign an oath or declaration stating that they believe they are an original inventor of the claimed subject matter (37 C.F.R. 1.63(a)(3)). As specified by the signature requirements for USPTO documents, the inventor oath or declaration can be signed by (1) a handwritten signature (37 C.F.R. 1.4(d)(1)) or (2) an S-signature (37 C.F.R. 1.4(d)(2)).
When the oath or declaration is signed using a handwritten signature, i.e., by the inventor personally signing the document in permanent dark ink, the signature is relatively easy to verify. Of course, this method requires the inventor to print the document and then scan or mail the document to be filed.
However, particularly due to restrictions imposed to combat the COVID-19 outbreak, it may not be possible or practical for the inventor to print or scan documents. In these cases, the inventor can sign their oath or declaration using a so-called “S-signature” which is an electronic signature inserted between forward slash marks, e.g., /John Smith/. S-signatures can be also be used for other documents, including powers of attorney and information disclosure statements, filed with the USPTO by paper, electronically via the EFS-Web platform, or by facsimile. There are several USPTO requirements for using an S-signature:
1) The S-signature must consist only of letters or Arabic numerals with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens as necessary, e.g., /Dr. James T. Jones, Jr./. "Letters" include English and non-English alphabet letters, and text characters (e.g., Kanji). Non-text, graphic characters (e.g., a smiley face created in the True Type Wing Dings font) are not permitted.
2) The person signing must insert their own signature, i.e., the signer must directly type their own signature using a keyboard. It is not permitted for one person (e.g., an assistant) to type in the signature of a second person (e.g., an inventor) even if the second person directs the first person to do so.
3) The signer’s name must be printed or typed immediately below or adjacent the S-signature and be reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized.
When an S-signature is used, the USPTO strongly suggests that each signer use their full name and, for consistency purposes and to avoid raising a doubt as to who has signed, that the same S-signature be used each time, with variations of the signature being avoided.
Examples of proper and improper handwritten and S-signatures can be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/defaultassets/htmldocuments/documents/sigexamples_alt_text.pdf
Regardless of whether a handwritten signature or an S-signature is used, evidence of the signature’s authenticity should be maintained in the event that the USPTO challenges the signature. As such, if a copy of a handwritten signature is submitted, the original signature should be retained. If an S-signature is used, an email or other transmission of the signature request and the returned signature should be retained. Where S-signatures are used for multiple inventors, each inventor should separately send back their signature as evidence of authenticity rather than one inventor using a single transmission for all signatures.
While S-signatures as described above are acceptable, an electronic reproduction of a handwritten signature, e.g., a scanned signature, that is electronically applied to a document is not a personally signed original document under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(i) and reproductions of such correspondence cannot be copies under 37 CFR 1.4(d)(1)(ii). As such, electronic reproductions of handwritten signatures should be avoided. Additionally, patent assignments are not filed via EFS-Web and their sufficiency may be interpreted under state law. There is not a universally accepted body of law indicating that all electronic signatures suffice for patent assignments, and state laws vary. However, most U.S. state and federal laws appear to permit the use of electronic signatures in patent assignments and other transactions involving intellectual property. Please consult your attorney with any questions regarding electronic signature requirements for these types of transactions, particularly assignments and exclusive licenses.
As described above, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) already accepts S-signatures for many documents that could also be signed by hand. However, because the USPTO considers the effects of the COVID-19 outbreak to be an “extraordinary situation” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.183 and 37 CFR 2.146(a)(5), the Office has waived its only previous requirements for original handwritten, ink signatures and, until further notice, will accept copies of handwritten signatures as well as S-signatures for correspondence relating to (1) registration to practice before the USPTO in patent cases, enrollment and disciplinary investigations, or disciplinary proceedings (37 CFR 1.4(e)(1)), and (2) payments by credit cards where the payment is not being made via the Office’s electronic filing systems (37 CFR 1.4(e)(2)). The USPTO’s waiver of these sections is subject to change and for evidentiary reasons handwritten signatures are still preferred where possible.
For more information, please contact Tom Daly at tdaly@lewisroca.com or Oliver Bajracharya at obajracharya@lewisroca.com.
- Partner
A born problem-solver, Tom brings a calm, knowledgeable, and logical approach to his clients' biggest challenges.
Thomas Daly is a partner in Lewis Roca’s Intellectual Property Practice Group. Clients appreciate the more than 25 years of experience in intellectual property law that he ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam