July 23, 2014

USPTO Publishes Final Rules for Micro-Entity Status and Fee Schedule

On December 19, 2012, the Patent Office published the final rule: “Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status for Paying Patents Fees” –77 Fed. Reg. 75019–and on January 18, 2013 the final fee schedule is expected to be published (link below). The Micro Entity status rules occupy 16 pages in the Federal Register, including the public comments. The primary meat of the Rules is the discussion of new sections 1.29(a) and  1.29(d) which set forth the requirements of individual inventor/applicants. Since most patent applications will still be filed by inventor/applicants (as opposed to institution/applicants, these are the sections that have the potential to save both individuals and certain institutions a lot of money (for example, a micro-entity can file a request for prioritized examination for only $1000).

Section 1.29(a) contains the involved procedures that permit an individual to assert micro entity status based on income, past filing history, etc., that I cannot believe will be widely used. Section 1.29(d), on the other hand, is much more user friendly, and permits an applicant to claim micro entity status if either (i) the applicant received a majority of his/her income from an institution of higher education as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, OR (ii) the applicant has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign a license or other ownership interest in the application to such an institution of higher education. The applicant and the assignee (or licensee) must still qualify as a small entity under s. 1.27, but that is not a problem for the average “university.” The qualifying university also cannot itself be the micro-entity.

This would seem to cover the “average professor” who executes the oath and declaration and an assignment to his/her institution, but it rapidly becomes draconian. The definition of institution of higher learning requires that the institution grant a bachelor’s degree or a two-year degree that would qualify students for further education toward a bachelor’s degree. The Office has taken the position that the statutory language excludes “separate non-profit corporation[s], research foundation[s] or other institution[s] that are legally separate from an institution of high education but whose stated mission is to represent that institution of higher education, to act on its behalf, and/or commercialize the [IP] of that institution of higher education.”

In other words, assignment or licensing of an application to an organization such as WARF, the Naval Research Laboratory or the Iowa State University Foundation would not meet the requirements of s. 1.29(d).   Granting a graduate degree is not sufficient.  See comment 12 and response. So assignment directly to a university, such as is required of University of Minnesota researchers, qualifies them for payment of micro entity fees but assignment to a university research foundation does not. I think that WARF, ISURF,  Cornell Research Foundation, University of Virginia Patent Foundation, Salk Institute and many other eminent entities had better consider granting four-year degrees in technology transfer.


© 2014 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author


Warren Woessner is a registered patent attorney and a founding shareholder of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner. His practice focuses on chemical patent law, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, vaccines, medical treatments, diagnostics, and biofuels and agricultural chemistry, including related opinion and licensing matters.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.