USPTO E-Signatures: Which Methods Now Count

See the primary source.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office revised the patent signature rule, cited as 89 FR 20321, to accept electronic signatures generated by third-party document-signing software on patent correspondence, while retaining handwritten signatures, S-signatures, and graphic representations already described in 37 CFR Part 1. The rule binds patent applicants and owners, practitioners, and other parties who sign patent-related correspondence. It is effective on March 22, 2024, the same day it was published.

What is in force now?

The obligation is already live. The final rule states that it is effective on March 22, 2024, and the Office waived any delayed effective date, so a law firm that still treats DocuSign-style signatures as informal extras is applying a superseded procedure.

This page is scoped to a sealed, point-in-time index of 1086 federal rules issued by 11 agencies and published September 1, 2023 – September 1, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed.

The Commerce Department issued the action under RIN 0651-AD73. The text amends 37 CFR Part 1, which is the patent rules of practice. Current regulation text is maintained on eCFR at that part.

A law firm that files declarations, assignments, powers of attorney, and other patent correspondence after March 22, 2024 is inside the live window. The rule does not say there is a later compliance date for existing dockets, and it does not say a house style that was acceptable the week before the effective date still controls.

Intake and docketing teams that already struggle to keep signature packets attached to the right matter — the same operational gap described in law-firm client intake automation — now have a second failure mode: a packet that is complete as a PDF but incomplete as a signature under 37 CFR Part 1.

What does the rule require?

According to the rule abstract, the Office is updating the signature rule to provide for the broader permissibility of electronic signatures using third-party document-signing software, such as DocuSign, and to more closely align signature requirements with the rules of practice in trademark cases. The revised rules are described as providing additional flexibility and convenience to patent applicants and owners, practitioners, and other parties who sign patent-related correspondence, and as promoting consistency by establishing signature requirements common to both patent and trademark matters.

The methods that count are the methods the final rule actually names. Handwritten signatures remain. S-signatures remain. Graphic representations of a handwritten signature or an S-signature remain, for correspondence submitted electronically via the USPTO patent electronic filing system. Newly added 37 CFR Part 1(d)(4) adds an additional electronic-signature option of a form specified by the Director.

An S-signature, as the preamble restates it, is a signature inserted between forward slash marks by the signer and is not a handwritten signature. An S-signature must consist only of letters, or Arabic numerals, or both, with appropriate spaces and commas, periods, apostrophes, or hyphens for punctuation, and the signer's name must be printed or typed, preferably immediately below or adjacent to the S-signature. That format did not go away when third-party software was added.

The new electronic signatures under the applicable section(d)(4) do not require the forward slashes of the S-signature rule. At the time of the final rule, the electronic signatures specified by the Director consist of electronic signatures generated via third-party document-signing software that meet the software requirements in the preamble. Signatures created using other types of software, such as graphic editing software, are not acceptable under newly added the applicable section(d)(4).

The software requirements in the preamble are specific. The software must be specifically designed to generate an electronic signature and preserve signature data for later inspection in the form of a digital certificate, token, or audit trail. The software must result in the signature page or electronic submission form bearing an indication that the page or form was generated or electronically signed using document-signing software. The Office recommends that the software generate the date on which the signature was applied; providing a date is not generally required in patent matters, but the date is required for electronic signatures signed using document-signing software in trademark matters before the USPTO.

The new option may be used whether the correspondence is submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mailed, faxed, or hand delivered, according to the final rule. That is a change from the prior graphic-representation path, which the preamble describes as limited to correspondence submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system.

Acceptance of a third-party tool does not remove the signer's certification obligations. The final rule redesignates the certification provisions as the applicable section(d)(5). The person inserting a signature under paragraph (d)(2), (3), or (4) certifies that the inserted signature appearing in the document is the person's own signature. A person submitting a document signed by another under those paragraphs is obligated to have a reasonable basis to believe that the signature was actually inserted by that person, and should retain evidence of authenticity of the signature. Violations of that certification may result in the imposition of sanctions under the applicable section(c) and (d) of this chapter, as the rule text states. The rule does not say a dollar penalty amount for a defective signature.

The signer must personally make their own signature, regardless of what type of signature is used. Another person may not use document-signing software to create or generate the electronic signature of the named signer, according to the preamble. A staff member who "applies" an inventor's DocuSign envelope is not filling a gap the rule left open; the rule closes that gap in words.

A patent practitioner signing pursuant to the applicable section(b)(1) or (2) must supply their registration number either as part of the electronic signature or immediately below or adjacent to it. A design patent practitioner must additionally indicate design patent practitioner status by placing the word "design" (in any format) adjacent to the electronic signature. The signer's name must be presented in printed or typed form, preferably immediately below or adjacent to the electronic signature, and must be reasonably specific enough so that the identity of the signer can be readily recognized, as the applicable section(d)(4) requires.

The rule does not say that using an approved software brand is a substitute for the certification. It does not say the Office will treat a partner's login as the inventor's signature. It does not say a scanned wet-ink page that was then "signed" again in a graphics program satisfies the applicable section(d)(4).

Where do law firms commonly fall short?

The shortfalls that show up in patent prosecution files are pattern failures, not a published enforcement scoreboard. The rule does not publish a count of defective signatures, and this page does not invent one.

The first pattern is treating the new option as a replacement for the S-signature rather than an addition. Paralegals who strip the slash-mark format from every template because "e-sign is now allowed" discard a method the Office still accepts. Inventors who cannot complete a DocuSign envelope still have the S-signature path. A firm that deleted it has less flexibility, not more.

The second pattern is letting someone other than the named signer generate the signature. A docket clerk who completes an inventor's envelope, an associate who pastes a partner's name between slashes, or a client-services coordinator who applies a stored image is doing the thing the preamble says another person may not do. The certification in redesignated the applicable section(d)(5) is personal.

The third pattern is using the wrong software class. Graphic editing software is not acceptable under the applicable section(d)(4). A PNG of a wet-ink signature dropped onto a PDF in an image editor is not the additional electronic-signature option the rule added, even if the file is later uploaded through Patent Center.

The fourth pattern is a signature block that is missing the printed name, the practitioner registration number, or the word "design" for a design patent practitioner. USPTO personnel reviewing a the applicable section(d)(4) signature are instructed to check those elements, according to the preamble. A noncompliant signature block is a noncompliant signature.

The fifth pattern is failing to retain authenticity evidence when the firm submits a document signed by someone else. The rule says the submitter should retain that evidence. A matter file that keeps the signed PDF and discards the certificate or audit trail is keeping the picture and throwing away the part the software requirement exists to preserve.

These are the same class of process gaps that show up when billing and conflict systems do not talk to the matter file — see law-firm billing automation and conflict-check software comparison. The signature rule is not a billing rule, but the failure mode is the same: the document that went out does not match the control the firm thinks it has.

What self-audit can a firm run now?

A firm can run the following check against open patent matters without waiting for an Office inquiry. The rule does not prescribe this checklist; it is an operational reading of the methods and certification the rule does prescribe.

1. Pull every declaration, assignment, power of attorney, and other signed patent correspondence prepared for filing on or after March 22, 2024.

2. Classify each signature as handwritten, S-signature, graphic representation, or additional electronic signature under the applicable section(d)(4). If the file cannot say which, the block is not ready.

3. For S-signatures, confirm forward slashes, the permitted character set, and a typed or printed name.

4. For the applicable section(d)(4) signatures, confirm the software is document-signing software that preserves a digital certificate, token, or audit trail, and that the page indicates it was generated or signed using that software.

5. Confirm the named signer personally entered or generated the signature. If a staff member generated it, the file is off the procedure the preamble describes.

6. Confirm practitioner registration numbers and, where applicable, the word "design."

7. Confirm the submitter has a reasonable basis and retained authenticity evidence for any signature inserted by another person, as the applicable section(d)(5) requires.

8. Flag any matter still using a pre-March 22, 2024 house rule that rejected third-party document-signing software, or that treated such software as automatically sufficient without the certification.

Patent Center is the Office's electronic patent filing and application-management system. Correspondence that travels through it still has to carry a signature that satisfies 37 CFR Part 1; the filing channel does not choose the signature method. DocuSign is third-party document-signing software of the kind the rule abstract names. Using it can satisfy the applicable section(d)(4) only if the software meets the certificate-or-audit-trail requirement, the page shows it was signed with document-signing software, and the named signer personally generated the signature. DocuSign does not, by itself, carry the certification in the applicable section(d)(5).

A related intake control is to stop collecting signature packets as unlabeled PDFs. The same discipline used in client-intake automation for law firms — one matter, one packet, one named owner — is the right shape for this rule. The owner here is the attorney responsible for the correspondence, not the software vendor.

How can the obligation be operationalized at volume?

Reconcile the matter docket against the change: each open matter maps to the filing, appearance, or fee the rule now requires and its due date. US Tech Automations flags matters still running on the superseded procedure and routes the correction to the responsible attorney.

That is the whole operational claim. US Tech Automations does not decide whether a signature is an S-signature or a the applicable section(d)(4) electronic signature, and it does not certify that a DocuSign envelope meets the software requirements in the preamble. The responsible attorney makes that call.

What can be automated is the flag: a matter whose template still forbids third-party document-signing software after March 22, 2024, a packet with no method tag, or a file that dropped authenticity evidence. What needs a human is whether the named signer personally signed, whether the software class is document-signing software, and whether the certification in the applicable section(d)(5) is actually true. US Tech Automations does not answer those questions.

Key Takeaways

• The USPTO signature rule at 89 FR 20321, RIN 0651-AD73, is already in force as of March 22, 2024, and amends 37 CFR Part 1.

• Handwritten signatures, S-signatures (name between forward slashes, letters and/or Arabic numerals), and graphic representations remain available; the applicable section(d)(4) adds electronic signatures generated by third-party document-signing software.

• Graphic-editing software is not acceptable under the applicable section(d)(4), and another person may not generate the named signer's electronic signature.

• Acceptance of a third-party tool does not remove the signer's certification obligations in redesignated the applicable section(d)(5); the rule does not say a dollar penalty for a defective signature.

• A self-audit that cannot name the method, the signer, and the retained authenticity evidence is not ready to file.

What questions come up in practice?

Which electronic signature methods does the Office accept on patent correspondence?

Handwritten signatures, S-signatures, graphic representations as described in the applicable section(d)(3), and, as of March 22, 2024, additional electronic signatures generated via third-party document-signing software under the applicable section(d)(4).

Did the S-signature format go away?

No. The preamble restates the S-signature as a signature inserted between forward slash marks, limited to letters and/or Arabic numerals with named punctuation, with the signer's name printed or typed. Newly added the applicable section(d)(4) signatures do not require those forward slashes.

Does using DocuSign satisfy the rule by itself?

The abstract names DocuSign as an example of third-party document-signing software. The software still has to preserve signature data as a digital certificate, token, or audit trail, the page has to indicate document-signing software was used, and the named signer still has to personally generate the signature. The certification obligations remain.

Can a paralegal apply an inventor's electronic signature?

The final rule states that the signer must personally make their own signature, and that another person may not use document-signing software to create or generate the electronic signature of the named signer.

Does the new electronic signature work only inside Patent Center?

No. The preamble states that the electronic signature under newly added the applicable section(d)(4) may be used whether the correspondence is submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system, mailed, faxed, or hand delivered.

Where is the official text?

The primary source is 89 FR 20321, document number 2024-06126, RIN 0651-AD73, published March 22, 2024. The current regulation text is in 37 CFR Part 1. Source: Federal Register / eCFR.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only. It is not legal or tax advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Regulatory requirements depend on the facts of a particular filing. Consult a qualified professional before acting.

Every date, citation, RIN, CFR reference, and figure in these posts is copied verbatim from the Federal Register and eCFR as of the snapshot date. Nothing is estimated, modeled, or extrapolated. This is not legal or tax advice.

.

Source: Federal Register (89 FR 20321); current text via eCFR, 37 CFR Part 1.

Last reviewed: March 22, 2024

The exception path is the agentic workflow layer.