37 CFR · Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
§ 1.153 — Title, description and claim, oath or declaration.
37 CFR § 1.153
TitleTitle 37: Patents, Trademarks, and CopyrightsPartPart 1: Rules of Practice in Patent Cases
SourceeCFR (current through Mar 30, 2026)
This text of 37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (Title, description and claim, oath or declaration.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
37 C.F.R. § 1.153 (2026).
Text
§ 1.153 Title, description and claim, oath or declaration.
(a)The title of the design must designate the particular article. No description, other than a reference to the drawing, is ordinarily required. The claim shall be in formal terms to the ornamental design for the article (specifying name) as shown, or as shown and described. More than one claim is neither required nor permitted.
(b)The inventor's oath or declaration must comply with the requirements of § 1.63, or comply with the requirements of § 1.64 for a substitute statement.
(35 U.S.C. 6, Pub. L. 97-247)
[24 FR 10332, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 29 FR 18503, Dec. 29, 1964; 48 FR 2712, Jan. 20, 1983; 77 FR 48821, Aug. 14, 2012]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
L.A. Gear, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Thom McAn Shoe Company and Melville Corporation and Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.
988 F.2d 1117 (Federal Circuit, 1993)
Robert W. Lee D/B/A Rollo-Laxer v. Dayton-Hudson Corporation D/B/A Target Stores and Matrix International, Inc.
838 F.2d 1186 (Federal Circuit, 1988)
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. The Hercules Tire & Rubber Company, Inc.
162 F.3d 1113 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
786 F.3d 983 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Berry Sterling Corp., Plaintiff-Cross v. Pescor Plastics, Inc.
122 F.3d 1452 (Federal Circuit, 1997)
Mark R. Hoop and Lisa J. Hoop v. Jeffrey W. Hoop, Stephen E. Hoop, and Hoopsters Accessories, Inc.
279 F.3d 1004 (Federal Circuit, 2002)
Best Lock Corporation v. Ilco Unican Corporation
94 F.3d 1563 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Curver Luxembourg, Sarl v. Home Expressions Inc.
938 F.3d 1334 (Federal Circuit, 2019)
Finkelstein v. Mardkha
495 F. Supp. 2d 329 (S.D. New York, 2007)
Safco Products Co. v. Welcom Products, Inc.
799 F. Supp. 2d 967 (D. Minnesota, 2011)
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar
745 F. Supp. 517 (N.D. Illinois, 1990)
Reddy v. Lowe's Companies, Inc.
60 F. Supp. 3d 249 (D. Massachusetts, 2014)
Rosco, Inc. v. Mirror Lite Co.
139 F. Supp. 2d 287 (E.D. New York, 2001)
G. B. Lewis Co. v. Gould Products, Inc.
297 F. Supp. 690 (E.D. New York, 1968)
Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co.
898 F.3d 1210 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Moen Inc. v. Foremost International Trading, Inc.
38 F. Supp. 2d 680 (N.D. Illinois, 1999)
Sun Hill Industries v. Easter Unlimited
831 F. Supp. 1024 (E.D. New York, 1993)
Electronic Molding Corp. v. Mupac Corp.
529 F. Supp. 300 (D. Massachusetts, 1981)
Arminak & Associates, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.
424 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (C.D. California, 2006)
Natal Pepitone v. American Standard, Inc.
983 F.2d 1087 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Nearby Sections
11
§ 1.146
Election of species.§ 1.151
Rules applicable.§ 1.152
Design drawings.§ 1.155
§ 1.155 [Reserved]§ 1.161
Rules applicable.Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
37 C.F.R. § 1.153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/cfr/37/1/1.153.