Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ldmcduffy]

It seems to me that a more general power of attorney that gives an attorney "the power to act on behalf of the assignee" is needed in order for the attorney to sign a 3.73 statement. Just having a Power of Attorney to Prosecute Applications Before the USPTO does not seem to give the attorney sufficient authority to sign a 3.73 statement.  Am I right?  See the below passages. 

From MPEP Sec. 324 V(A):
A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. 

BUT - the very next sentence says: The submission may be signed by any person, if the submission sets forth that the person signing is authorized (or empowered) to act on behalf of the assignee

From the POA form from the USPTO:
A copy of this form, together with a statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b) (Form PTO/SB/96 or equivalent) is required to be filed in each application in which this form is used. The statement under 37 CFR 3.73(b) may be completed by one of the practitioners appointed in this form if the appointed practitioner is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, and must identify the application in which this Power of Attorney is to be filed.

[bleedingpen]

I sign almost all of the 3.73 statements I file for my clients.

[ldmcduffy]

So do you typically only have a Power of Attorney to Prosecute Patent Applications or do you have a more general Power that states you can act on behalf of your client? 

The MPEP and the 3.73 blurb in the Power of Attorney form seemed contradictory to me, so I called the Patent Office just to see what they said.  FWIW, they said a Power to Prosecute  Patent Applications alone is not sufficient to sign a 3.73 statement, because signing a 3.73 statement may not be interpreted as part of prosecuting a patent application.  I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I am still a little concerned about signing a 3.73 statement.   

[bleedingpen]

Authorized to act on behalf of the assignee seems to give a lot of leeway.  Verbal or email authorization ok?

Anyways, I have been signing for my clients and it hasn't been an issue.

[ldmcduffy]

Agreed that authorized to act on behalf of is very broad.  And I doubt many clients would go for that. 

I'm not sure if verbal/email authorization is sufficient, but if it is and you get it, then simply signing the 3.73 with the assertion that you are authorized to sign should be acceptable. 

I think 3.73 statements are routinely signed by attorneys, but I just wonder if they should be if all they have is the Power to Prosecute Patent Apps - based on the MPEP passages and PTO form language cited in the first post. 

Appreciate your feedback.