直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Prosecution First Blog

To File or Not to File As An Applicant-Assignee: That Is the Question

March 11, 2013

Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Jeffrey A. Berkowitz

One of the recent changes under the AIA allows for an assignee, an obligated assignee (e.g., a person with an assignment clause in their employment agreement), or a person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter to file and prosecute a patent application as the “applicant.” This definitional change no longer makes the “applicant” synonymous with the inventor(s) and harmonizes the term more with international conventions. It also leads to the question:  are there any reasons to or not to file as the applicant-assignee? 

Here are some considerations when determining whether to file as the applicant-assignee: 

  • When the assignee is the applicant, the assignee may grant the power of attorney without having to establish a right to take action. 
  • Even though an assignee may file and prosecute the application, the inventor(s) must still execute an oath or declaration (except in limited circumstances). 
  • For an assignee or obligated assignee, evidence of ownership (e.g., an assignment or an employment agreement) should be recorded no later than when the issue fee is paid. 
  • If an assignment is not executed prior to filing (and there is no obligation to assign or proprietary interest in the matter), care should be taken if filing as the applicant-assignee and consideration should be given to filing in the names of the inventors. A party having less than the entire right, title, and interest may not on their own file the patent application.
  • Juristic entities (e.g., organizational assignees) must be represented by a patent practitioner and can no longer act pro se. 
  • In continuing applications (with a parent application having a filing date on or after September 16, 2012), a new power of attorney is not necessary. The assignee can file the power of attorney filed in the parent application, even if a new inventor is added as long as that inventor assigns or is under an obligation to assign to that same assignee and the assignment is recorded. 
  • When you nationalize a PCT application in the United States, the applicant identified at the international stage will now be the applicant at the national stage. Thus, one can file at the international stage in the name of the inventors and once assignments have been signed, file a request for change at the international stage to the assignee. This allows for nationalizing in the United States as the applicant-assignee.

Tags

Applicant-Assignee, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

Contacts

Adriana L. Burgy
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4345
Email
Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2710
Email

Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP