# MPEP § 1410.02: Assignee Consent to the Reissue > Federal · Agency guidance · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1410.02 ## Section - **Citation:** MPEP § 1410.02 - **Heading:** Assignee Consent to the Reissue - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Agency guidance - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** USPTO MPEP / Chapter 1400 - Correction of Patents / MPEP § 1410.02 ## Text I. WRITTEN CONSENT A reissue application, whether filed before, on, or after September 16, 2012, must be accompanied by the written consent of all assignees, if any, currently owning an undivided interest in the patent. In addition, all assignees consenting to the reissue must establish their ownership in the patent by filing in the reissue application a submission in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 3.73 . Where no assignee exists, applicant should affirmatively state that fact. This can be done by simply checking the "NO" box of item 8 of Form PTO/AIA/50, which may be signed by the inventors or by a registered practitioner. If the file record is silent as to the existence of an assignee, it will be presumed that an assignee does exist . This presumption should be set forth by the examiner in the first Office action alerting applicant to the requirement. It should be noted that the mere filing of a written assertion of small entity status (see MPEP § 509.03 ) or a certification of micro entity status (see MPEP § 509.04 ) in no way relieves applicant of the requirement to affirmatively state that no assignee exists. Where a written assertion of small entity status, a certification of micro entity status, or other paper in file indicates that the application/patent is assigned, and there is no consent by the assignee named in the written assertion of small entity status or the certification of micro entity status, the examiner should make inquiry into the matter in an Office action, even if the record otherwise indicates that the application/patent is not assigned. The reissue oath or declaration must be accompanied by a written consent of all assignees tent is assigned, and there is no consent by the assignee named in the written assertion of small entity status or the certification of micro entity status, the examiner should make inquiry into the matter in an Office action, even if the record otherwise indicates that the application/patent is not assigned. The reissue oath or declaration must be accompanied by a written consent of all assignees. Thus, where an application is filed without an oath or declaration, or without the consent of all assignees, if the application otherwise complies with 37 CFR 1.53(b) and the reissue rules (particularly 37 CFR 1.173(a)(1) and 1.173(b)(2) ), the Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will accord a filing date and send out a notice of missing parts setting a period of time for filing the missing part and for payment of any surcharge required under 37 CFR 1.53(f) and 37 CFR 1.16(f) . If the reissue oath or declaration is filed but the assignee consent is lacking, the surcharge is required because, until the consent is filed, the reissue oath or declaration is defective, since it is not apparent that the signatures thereon are proper absent an indication that the assignees have consented to the filing. The consent of assignee must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the consent may be signed by the assignee or a patent practitioner of record. For applications filed before September 16, 2012, the consent must be signed by the assignee. Where the assignee is a juristic entity, the consent may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization, or a person who makes a statement of authorization to act on behalf of the assignee. For a discussion of parties authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, see MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) and MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012) e signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization, or a person who makes a statement of authorization to act on behalf of the assignee. For a discussion of parties authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, see MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012) and MPEP § 324 (for applications filed before September 16, 2012). The consent to the reissue application may use language such as: The XYZ Corporation, assignee of U.S. Patent No. 99,999,999, consents to the filing of reissue application No. 99/999,999 (or the present application, if filed with the initial application papers) for the reissue of U.S. Patent No. 99,999,999. _______________ Jane Doe Vice President, XYZ Corporation Where the written consent of all the assignees to the filing of the reissue application cannot be obtained, applicant may under appropriate circumstances petition to the Office of Petitions ( MPEP § 1002.02(b) ) for a waiver under 37 CFR 1.183 of the requirement of 37 CFR 1.172 , to permit the acceptance of the filing of the reissue application. The petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(f) must be included with the petition. The reissue application can then be examined, but will not be allowed or issued without the consent of all the assignees as required by 37 CFR 1.172 . See Baker Hughes Inc. v. Kirk, 921 F. Supp. 801, 809, 38 USPQ2d 1885, 1892 (D.D.C. 1995), N. B. Fassett, 1877 C.D. 32, 11 O.G. 420 (Comm’r Pat. 1877); James D. Wright, 1876 C.D. 217, 10 O.G. 587 (Comm’r Pat. 1876). Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the assignee consent from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the copy of the consent is generally not adequate for the continuation reissue application. See MPEP § 1451 , subsection II.A, for more information 1877); James D. Wright, 1876 C.D. 217, 10 O.G. 587 (Comm’r Pat. 1876). Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the assignee consent from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is not to be abandoned, the copy of the consent is generally not adequate for the continuation reissue application. See MPEP § 1451 , subsection II.A, for more information. Where a continuation reissue application is filed with a copy of the assignee consent from the parent reissue application, and the parent reissue application is, or will be abandoned, the copy of the consent should be accepted by the Office. Other than the exception noted below, where a divisional reissue application is filed with a copy of the assignee consent from the parent reissue application, regardless of whether or not the parent reissue application is to be abandoned, the copy of the assignee consent should not be accepted. The copy of the consent from the parent does not indicate that the assignee has consented to the addition of the new invention of the divisional reissue application to the original patent, or to the addition of the new error correction of the continuation reissue application. (Presumably, a new correction has been added via the continuation, because the parent is still pending.) As noted above, OPAP will accord a filing date and the examiner will require the submission of a proper assignee consent. If, however, a divisional reissue application is being filed in response to a restriction requirement made in the parent reissue application, the assignee need not file a consent to the divided out invention now being submitted in the divisional application because consent has already been provided in the parent reissue application. See MPEP § 1451 , subsection I.A. Form paragraph 14.15 may be used to indicate that the consent of the assignee is lacking. ## Nearby sections - [MPEP § 1400.01 Introduction](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1400.01.md) - [MPEP § 1401 Reissue](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1401.md) - [MPEP § 1402 Grounds for Filing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1402.md) - [MPEP § 1403 Diligence in Filing](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1403.md) - [MPEP § 1404 Submission of Papers Where Reissue Patent Is in Litigation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1404.md) - [MPEP § 1405 Reissue and Patent Term](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1405.md) - [MPEP § 1406 Citation and Consideration of References Cited in Original Patent](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1406.md) - [MPEP § 1410 Content of Reissue Application](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1410.md) - [MPEP § 1410.01 Reissue Applicant and Inventor's Oath or Declaration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1410.01.md) - [MPEP § 1410.02 Assignee Consent to the Reissue](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1410.02.md) - [MPEP § 1411 Form of Specification](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1411.md) - [MPEP § 1411.01 Certificate of Correction or Disclaimer in Original Patent](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1411.01.md) - [MPEP § 1411.02 New Matter](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1411.02.md) - [MPEP § 1412 Content of Claims](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1412.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/MPEP_S1410.02. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.