assignment patent uspto

The basics of patent assignments

What is a patent assignment, what are the requirements to make it valid, and why would a business enter into a patent assignment agreement? Read on to find answers to these questions and more.

Find out more about Patents

by   Cindy DeRuyter, Esq.

Cindy DeRuyter, Esq., has been writing for LegalZoom since 2018. She earned a Juris Doctor from Mitchell Hamline Scho...

Read more...

Updated on: December 4, 2023 · 2 min read

Defining Patent Assignment

Requirements to assign a patent, searching for patent assignments.

Assigning patents can be a great way for companies to generate revenue and reduce risks associated with intellectual property ownership. If you are considering entering into a patent assignment agreement, understand that it is irrevocable. Because of that, evaluate proposed terms and provisions carefully before moving forward.

Here's a high-level overview of how patent assignments work: when a patent's owner or applicant assigns it to another individual or company, the assignor agrees to relinquish their rights to enforce or benefit from it in the future.

You can assign rights for applications still pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). When the USPTO approves the application, the assignee benefits from and may use and enforce the patent, not the assignor. Companies also assign rights for issued patents, which relieves the assignor of the burden of enforcing their intellectual property and provides a source of revenue.

Patent assignments can be lucrative for both parties. While assignors make money right away, assignees can create revenue streams by earning money from royalty payments. After an assignment is complete, the assignee has exclusive rights to such income.

A patent assignment agreement documents the transfer and arrangement between the parties. If you are considering entering into one, know that you need it to be written—a verbal agreement alone is insufficient.

Don't underestimate the importance of this, either. Without a valid agreement on file with the USPTO, an intended assignor remains legally responsible for the patent and an intended assignee gains none of the rights or benefits.

Here are the requirements for a valid written assignment:

• Confirm that the assignor has the full, legal right to make the assignment and that the assignee can legally assume the rights and obligations.
• Clearly identify both the assignor and assignee using legal names. If more than one company owns the patent, identify all owners.
• Identify the underlying patent by title and number and include a complete and accurate description of it.
• Describe the terms of the agreement, including financial arrangements.
• All parties must sign the agreement, with limited exceptions in situations where the assignor cannot be reached but where enough evidence exists that documents their intentions and rights.
• File the patent assignment with the USPTO within three months after the agreement is signed, paying the then-current fee.

Though the agreement is a legal document, it does not need to be notarized. However, obtaining notarization for the signatures provides added protection, limiting the risk of a party later claiming a signature was not valid.

The USPTO maintains a patent assignment database that includes all the assignments recorded since August 1980. Using the database, you can search with the assignor's or assignee's name, the patent number, application number, publication number, or other identifying information.

Properly assigning patents protects both assignors and assignees. If you want to assign a patent, downloading a patent assignment form can help. Alternatively, you can consult an intellectual property attorney .

You may also like

What is a power of attorney (POA)? A comprehensive guide

Setting up a power of attorney to make your decisions when you can't is a smart thing to do because you never know when you'll need help from someone you trust.

May 7, 2024 · 15min read

How to Start an LLC in 7 Easy Steps (2024 Guide)

2024 is one of the best years ever to start an LLC, and you can create yours in only a few steps.

May 16, 2024 · 22min read

Navigating The USPTO Patent Assignment Search: A Comprehensive Guide

Contributor.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is a pivotal institution in the realm of intellectual property, playing a crucial role in protecting the innovations that fuel progress. Among its varied services, the USPTO patent assignment search stands out as an essential resource for individuals and organizations navigating the intricacies of patent ownership and assignments. This guide delves deep into the functionality and significance of the USPTO's patent assignment search tool, shedding light on its utility and operation for all stakeholders involved in the patenting process.

Understanding Patent Assignments

To fully appreciate the value of the USPTO assignment search, one must first understand what a patent assignment entails. Essentially, a patent assignment is the transfer of an owner's rights, title, and interest in a patent or patent application to another entity or individual. This process can occur through the sale of the patent, a transfer of ownership during a business transaction, or through inheritance. The completion of an assignment confers upon the new owner the exclusive rights to the patent, including the authority to prevent others from exploiting the patented invention.

The Role of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search

Central to the USPTO's offerings is the USPTO assignment database, a comprehensive repository that records all patent assignment information from August 1980 to the current day. This database becomes indispensable for verifying the present ownership of a patent or patent application whenever the USPTO processes pertinent assignment details.

For inventors, legal professionals, and corporations alike, the USPTO assignment search is vital for various reasons. It facilitates due diligence efforts prior to the acquisition or licensing of patents, aids in the resolution of patent right disputes, and ensures adherence to assignment recording protocols.

Utilizing the USPTO Patent Assignment Search

Thanks to the user-friendly interface of the USPTO assignment search tool , users can effortlessly access detailed records of patent assignments. This tool, part of the broader USPTO Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS), allows searches by multiple criteria such as patent number, assignor and assignee names, publication numbers, and reel/frame numbers. Results from this assignee search provide comprehensive details about each assignment, including participant names, assigned patents or applications, and the date of assignment.

The USPTO patent assignment search tool is far more than a mere database; it serves as a critical access point to the legal and commercial dimensions of patenting. By facilitating access to exhaustive records of US patent assignments, the USPTO empowers stakeholders across the innovation landscape to make well-informed decisions. This, in turn, helps in averting disputes and promoting the seamless transfer of technology. Whether you are conducting a US patent assignment search, exploring the USPTO assignment database, or utilizing the USPTO trademark assignment search function, the USPTO's resources are invaluable for anyone involved in the intricate world of patents and trademarks.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Intellectual Property

United states.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know keyboard_arrow_down

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Jump to main content

Learn the fundamentals of the patent application process

Do you have an invention you want to patent? Are you unfamiliar with the patent filing process? Are you a first-time patent application filer or new to the Patent Center? Are you unsure where to start?

Get a head StART with this free, virtual three-day workshop that focuses on helping participants learn the fundamentals of the patent application process. The Stakeholder Application Readiness Training (StART) is for independent inventors, entrepreneurs, and anyone working for or with a small business who want to file patent applications without the assistance of a registered patent agent or attorney.

Patent protection is critical to:

• Safeguarding products and services from imitation
• Attracting and securing funding from outside investors
• Promoting the overall commercial success of any enterprise

The StART program is one of many initiatives and activities that form part of the USPTO’s mission. Participants of the StART three-day workshop will receive training from experts on the following subjects:

• Types of patent applications
• Prior art searches
• Scope of claims
• Formality requirements
• Claim writing and claim drafting
• Proper application forms (provisional, design, and non-provisional)
• Application data sheet
• Patent Center

Participants may also choose to participate in one-on-one assistance breakout room discussions.

Complete interest form

Instructions for joining the training session are provided via email to each registrant. For more information, email [email protected] .

If you are an individual with a disability and require reasonable accommodation to access this training, please email the Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity (OEEOD) at  [email protected]  or call 571-272-8292.

Accessibility accommodation

If you are an individual with a disability and would like to request a reasonable accommodation, please submit your request to the contact information listed above.

Additional information about this page

America's leading patent law source

USPTO Adapts to CAFC’s New Guidelines: What Design Patent Examiners Need to Know

by Dennis Crouch

On May 22, 2024, the day after the Federal Circuit’s en banc LKQ v. GM decision, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its examiners providing updated guidance and examination instructions in light of the court’s overturning of the long-standing Rosen-Durling test for determining obviousness of design patents. The memo, signed by USPTO Director Kathi Vidal, aims to immediately align USPTO practices with the more flexible approach outlined by the Federal Circuit, which eliminated the rigid requirements that: (1) a primary reference be “basically the same” as the claimed design, and (2) secondary references be “so related” to the primary reference that features in one would suggest application to the other.  This is a major shift in examination practice for design patents so it will be important to watch the developments to see whether the office ramps up design examination.

Although the primary reference need not be “basically the same” as the claimed invention, the court still maintained that the obviousness analysis begins with a primary reference. The opinion though doe snot grapple with this issue in any depth but rather appears to assume that the analysis will begin with a primary reference, without thoroughly examining potential alternatives.  In the decision, the court states: “In applying Graham factor one, the scope and content of the prior art, a primary reference must be identified.” The court then explains that the purpose of identifying a primary reference is to “protect against hindsight because ‘almost every new design is made up of elements which, individually, are old somewhere in the prior art.'”

The USPTO’s guidance generally tracks the Federal Circuit’s opinion quite closely.   For the first Graham factor – determining the scope and content of the prior art – the memo instructs examiners that a primary reference must still be identified, but it need not be “basically the same” as the claimed design. Rather, it “need only be ‘something in existence’ . . . and ‘visually similar'” to the claimed design to protect against hindsight. The “more visually similar the primary reference is to the claimed design, the better positioned” an examiner will be to make a prima facie obviousness case.

The Vidal memo notes that the primary reference will typically be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed article of manufacture, “but it need not be, so long as it is analogous art.”  And, like the primary reference, any secondary references must also be analogous art. “If a design is not analogous art, it may not be considered by the examiner in assessing obviousness.”

Importantly, the memo acknowledges the Federal Circuit did not fully define the test for analogous art for design patents, particularly how to determine if a reference outside the field of endeavor of the article of manufacture is “reasonably pertinent” to the problem being solved by the new design invention.  The memo provides some limited guidance on this issue – stating that that examiners should consider the degree to which an ordinary designer would be motivated to look to other fields, and confer with their supervisory examiner if there are questions.

For the second Graham factor – ascertaining the differences between the claimed design and the prior art – the USPTO instructs examiners to compare the overall visual appearance from the perspective of an ordinary designer. There is no similarity threshold requirement.

For the third factor – the level of ordinary skill – examiners should consider the knowledge of an ordinary designer who designs articles of the type being examined.

And finally, the memo confirms that, where present, objective indicia of non-obviousness should be considered. The memo notes that existing guidance and case law in this area is still applicable.

Once these factors are considered, the examiner is asked to determine whether the claimed design would have been obvious using the following test:

If an ordinary designer in the field to which the claimed design pertains would have been motivated to modify the prior art design to create the same overall visual appearance as the claimed design, then the examiner should reject the claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 barring convincing secondary indicia of nonobviousness being of record.

In making this inquiry, the memo reiterates several points:

• The focus is on the “visual impression of the claimed design as a whole and not on selected individual pieces.”
• Any prior art references relied upon must satisfy the “analogous art” test.
• The motivation to combine might not come from any of the references, but there “must be some record-supported reason (without impermissible hindsight) that an ordinary designer in the field of the article of manufacture would have modified the primary reference with the feature(s) from the secondary reference(s) to create the same overall appearance as the claimed design.”
• As one guide point for combining prior art, the memo note when two references are starkly different, it will be harder to establish a motivation to combine the two sufficient for a prima facie obviousness rejection. This comes straight from the CAFC opinion’s statement that: “Just as with the analogous art inquiry, in the area of motivation to combine, the problem to be solved may have less relevance in the design patent context than in the utility patent context. Of course, it follows that the more different the overall appearances of the primary reference versus the secondary reference(s), the more work a patent challenger will likely need to do to establish a motivation to alter the primary prior art design in light of the secondary one and demonstrate obviousness without the aid of hindsight.”

Overall, the USPTO’s approach closely adheres to the framework outlined by the Federal Circuit. By eliminating the “basically the same” and “so related” requirements, while still maintaining the use of a primary reference and analogous art requirement, the guidance allows for the more flexible approach demanded by the court and Supreme Court precedent like KSR and Graham .

I also like the USPTO approach in that it asks examiners to walk through the four Graham factors as part of its analysis, including the requirement of analogous art and evidence showing a motivation to combine/modify.

However, a few open questions remain that the USPTO will need to grapple with as it applies this new guidance. First is the unresolved question of how to determine if a reference outside the field of endeavor is analogous art. The “reasonably pertinent” prong of the analogous arts test seems difficult to apply in the design context, where the “problem” being solved is more ambiguous than in utility patents. The court and PTO left further development of this issue to future cases.  Second, without the clear goalpost of a “basically the same” primary reference, there may be a wider range of potential primary references and more uncertainty around whether a particular reference really is the “most similar.” Examiners will need to carefully explain their reasoning.

From a strategic perspective for design patent applicants and owners, this decision and the USPTO guidance will likely make obviousness rejections somewhat more common, and design patents somewhat harder to obtain and easier to invalidate. Without the “basically the same” requirement, examiners have more flexibility to combine references.

49 thoughts on “ USPTO Adapts to CAFC’s New Guidelines: What Design Patent Examiners Need to Know ”

By the way, did anyone notice that in relation to Factual Inquiry One, the memo says ” the design examiner should consider the degree to which an ordinarily skilled designer would be motivated to consider other fields” but the actual determination of skill level doesn’t come until Factual Inquiry Three. How can you determine analogousness for Factual Inquiry One without first doing Factual Inquiry Three?

What is it about this comment which you think readers of Patently-O would find offensive? Thanks for your report!

It’s not clear that the factual inquiries must be performed sequentially.

“For the third factor – the level of ordinary skill – examiners should consider the knowledge of an ordinary designer who designs articles of the type being examined.”

In what way will Examiners ever have any understanding of the knowledge of an ordinary designer who designs articles of the type being examined?

So… “of the type” draws back into the equation (distinguishing “Na ked” designs (or designs in the abstract))?

Would “professional designers” who design ACROSS many “articles of MANY types be excluded as being beyond “ordinary?”

“an ordinary designer who designs articles of the type being examined”

I wishfully think “articles of the type” ties into In re SurgiSil in that the claim will limit the prior art to that type of article and the designer will be one who designs that type of article. Or at least, that’s my wishful thinking.

The same way utility examiners determine POSITA…

Another patent attorney article questioning the impact of LKQ v. GM [after noting the preceeding 20% increase in design patent applications]: link to ipwatchdog.com

The USPTO dragged its feet on when the SurgiSil decision came out but this updated guidelines came out at warp speed. Maybe because one worked against Examiners and for Applicants while the other supposedly does the opposite.

Are you shocked?

What else would you expect from the In NO vation Office!

Thanks again Perry. I have one more quibble or question re your views on whether there will be a substantial reduction in the number of design patent applications after this case? I don’t see why? The costs of obtaining and maintaining design patents should be cheap enough for many clients to continue to file them, and still be unlikely to get into 103 argument costs unless and until the design patent is actually asserted. Isn’t their PTO filing fee only $750 even for a large entity? Cannot a good experienced secretary or admin do most of the filing work if told by and reviewed by a design patent law savvy attorney or agent as to what drawings to order, what lines to be solid or dashed, what elements to split into separate applications, and what title to give it? There are no specs or claims to prepare. There is the expense of the drawings, but that is now done digitally. Design patents do not have any maintenance fees at all over their entire 14 year term. Furthermore, as patentable designs are on or integral articles of manufacture, they do not have the option of trade secrecy protection that some utility patents have.

Paul, sorry, but your post sounds like a true utility patent guy who has probably never prepared and filed a design patent application. Except for the lack of maintenance fees and availability of total profit damages under 289 (which you did not mention), your post is total, total, hogwash.

In fact, it’s typical of how utility patent guys look down on design patents as the black sheep of the family. It may have been justified in the 80s, but not now. Ask Samsung who forked over $500m to Apple. Do you think a secretary prepared and filed those applications?

Full disclosure: I used to be one of those utility patent guys, back in the 80s, who recommended design patents as a booby prize if the utility patent search came back negative. Then, along came Avia v. LA Gear, I flipped, and the rest, as they say….

Perry, I was merely providing another good reason [lower overall cost] why the number of design applications need not shrink that much. I knew it would not be popular. But note that I clearly said: “if told by and reviewed by a design patent law savvy attorney or agent as to what drawings to order, what lines to be solid or dashed, what elements to split into separate applications, and what title to give it.”

None of our secretaries, legal assistants have ever prepared design applications, even under the tutilage of an attorney. Only attorneys, interacting with the draftsman, draft claims and spec & appendix, etc. The most a paralegal might do is prepare documents, e.g., Dec., PoA, IDS, etc.

So … computers can “conceive of” and draft verbal descriptions of utility inventions *on their own* … but an educated human can’t draw a non-obvious design using a computer?

Talk to Dennis, Perry! He can help you!

Your use of “ can ” and “ can’t ” is NOT the same as what Perry is talking about.

It is not a ‘capability’ issue for him.

But you knew that, right?

Thank you reminding everyone that design patent “attorneys” and “experts” are the most overpaid people on the planet.

My pointing out your erroneous h1j@ck leads you to that strawman?

You be you.

What no pouty face, Snowflake?? So you know Prophet must be right.

Your new €hoi€e is already well beyond $tale.

“Flexible approach.”

Welcome to our utility patent world, design patent applicants + holders.

Our frustrating world.

I’m already on blog-record as betting that the very small percentage of 103 rejections of [all to easy to get issued] design patent applications is not likely to suddenly increase after LKQ v. GM. How many design examiners are going to have time to dig up and apply prior art from what may or may not NOW be considered prior art or combinable prior arts? However, I would like to be proven wrong on that, and perhaps these instant new Guidelines may help a bit? P.S. Since Dennis is using that same design patent drawing of an entire car again, I suggest it also be used as a teaching example of what NOT to do in a design patent application. With so many different SOLID lines shapes of so many different different parts of that car in the same drawing the claim scope is so narrow it would get instantly allowed but never infringed.

Since when is examination (under the law) acceptable to be constrained by “I didn’t have time to do my job” from an examiner?

“Since when is examination (under the law) acceptable to be constrained by “I didn’t have time to do my job” from an examiner?”

Since forever. But it’s reached beyond a fever pitch now. Over half the AU over here is burned out (in final stage or near there). And I’ll be fired within a month if I don’t start just allowing things. To be replaced by someone who will. no lie no lie famalam.

Let me call B$.

There is no “Allow Allow Allow.”

Further, if there were, that would be as bad as “Reject Reject Reject.”

Further, your “ Since forever ” is a gross dereliction of the law.

My clients do not pay for “x” amount of examination time . My clients pay for a full examination – under the law.

Do not make your problems with your internal metrics to be my client’s problems.

If clients really do think they are paying for or getting what they think is a PTO “full examination” of every patent application they file, they must be getting some very erronious legal advice from somebody.

Really Paul?

You really should rethink that.

(How long has it been since you abandoned your registration number?)

“My clients do not pay for “x” amount of examination time. My clients pay for a full examination – under the law.”

Fu ck off. The full examination is whatever the bean counter says it is.

“There is no “Allow Allow Allow.”

Yeah there definitely is now in the modern day.

Right back atcha 6.

(You do know of course, that I am correct)

No, you’re not correct. You’re mentally ill.

Oh please, try to do more than the Malcolm style misaimed ad hominem.

(And think back to all of your changed positions that now reflect my holding your feet to the fire – as you slowly learn, you adhere more and more to what I have taught you)

Since that is a regular complant about patent examiner examinations, ask how many patent attorneys only being paid X$ [equal to only Y billing hours even for the lowest associate] by a client for preparation of a patent application will regularly spend YYY UNbillable billing hours to prepare a much more thorough patent application? Also ask how many clients these days pay for a pre-filing prior art search [if any] that is better than the mere few hundred dollars the PTO charges for their prior art searches?

The time and numbers pressures on PTO examiners for examinations leads not only to allowances of patents that cannot survive IPRs, it is also a contributor to the increase in continuations and RCE’s by clients and their attorneys who were not anticipating allowances of broad “shotgun fire in the dark” claims their applications were filed with absent pre-filing prior art searches.

“The time and numbers pressures on PTO examiners for examinations leads not only to allowances of patents that cannot survive IPRs, it is also a contributor to the increase in continuations and RCE’s by clients and their attorneys who were not anticipating allowances of broad “shotgun fire in the dark” claims their applications were filed with absent pre-filing prior art searches.”

Right which leads to still further nonsense. On and on.

Allow, allow, allow actually makes sense. Since 2012 there are proceedings for the just, speedy, and inexpensive invalidation of patents that were issued improvidently. The PTO has long had quality “review” but in the present schema the PTAB serves as quality control.

Interesting posit Pain. So then let’s go to a no-exam patent registration system . . . while keeping the PTAB in place . . .

With all the examiners being moved over to the PTAB.

What’s not to like?

(With Vidal taken to throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks, who knows?)

It was Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson (aka the first patent examiner) who examined patents and felt so overwhelmed that he caused the US to go to a patent registration system but that did not last long.

based history bringer upper.

But yeah, history repeating itself on that front. Doesn’t actually have to, but whatever pressures are on the deciding people in the PTO that decide how much effort is to be expended per app have caused them to default to yesteryear numbers forever. As the arts have just gone into the stratosphere in complexity etc. There’s really no reason for this to be happening overall other than poor leadership.

Do not overlook the strong resistence to increasing the low US PTO examination fees by the very people that complain about its quality and ignore the huge increases in searchable prior art.

And do not 1gn0re the quantum leaps in effectiveness from the days of looking in paper shoes.

You are aware as well that fees are not set by, or even influenced by, practitioners, right?

How long ago did you abandon your registration number again?

At least he had a registration number, Snowflake. What’s your imaginary number?

And Snowflake don’t do the pouty face when you don’t answer.

Thank$$ for your €hoi€es.

Are the emoticons upsetting you, or is this just your latest game?

By the by, “pouty” is not close to the emoticon.

“Do not overlook the strong resistence to increasing the low US PTO examination fees by the very people that complain about its quality and ignore the huge increases in searchable prior art.”

Nah I get it man, apparently it’s not just lawyers on behalf of clients, but it is a lot of what we in heavy industry would call “light industry”. The light industry needs a broad front door for their filings on the cheap and just aren’t that worried about the other things as much. As far as I’ve heard near all the corporations that work in my art are on board with higher fees for filing (+search) at least and would at the least like more search. But for whatever internal reasons they will not go a la carte.

you are in heavy industry? x’plain.

Show us the pouty face again!!! Just once more!! Puuleeeze???

Your latest choice is already getting dull.

“…and would at the least like more search.”

Why do the self-proclaimed experts at searching always claim they need more time to search?

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment -->

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.