FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 11
Drawings
35 U.S.C. § 113
Title35 — Patents
Chapter11 — APPLICATION FOR PATENT
This text of 35 U.S.C. § 113 (Drawings) 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
35 U.S.C. § 113.
Text
The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. When the nature of such subject matter admits of illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the Director may require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from the sending of a notice thereof. Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used (i) to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or (ii) to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Autogiro Company of America v. The United States
384 F.2d 391 (Court of Claims, 1967)
In Re Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. Patent Litigation. Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Ven-Tel, Inc.
982 F.2d 1527 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
884 F.3d 1357 (Federal Circuit, 2018)
Nicholas Straussler v. United States
290 F.2d 827 (Court of Claims, 1961)
MacLaren v. B-I-W Group Inc.
401 F. Supp. 283 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Nartron Corp. v. Borg Indak, Inc.
848 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Michigan, 2012)
In Re Amalgamated Development Co., Inc.
375 A.2d 494 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1977)
Pave Tech, Inc. v. Snap Edge Corp.
952 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Illinois, 1997)
Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Co.
631 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Mississippi, 1985)
Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.
982 F.2d 1527 (Federal Circuit, 1992)
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc.
623 F. Supp. 1344 (N.D. California, 1985)
Williams v. General Surgical Innovations, Inc.
178 F. Supp. 2d 698 (E.D. Texas, 2002)
Freeman v. Gerber Products Co.
284 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Kansas, 2003)
AstraZeneca AB v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
(N.D. West Virginia, 2022)
Zip Top, Inc. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
(N.D. Illinois, 2024)
Source Credit
History
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 799; Pub. L. 94–131, §8, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §34, part (R.S. 4889, amended Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 94, §2, 38 Stat. 958).
The requirement for signature in the corresponding section of existing statute is omitted; regulations of the Patent Office can take care of any substitute. A redundant clause is omitted.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner".
1975—Pub. L. 94–131 substituted provisions respecting drawings requiring necessary-for-understanding drawings and submission of drawings within prescribed time period and limiting use of drawings submitted after filing date of application for prior provision requiring the applicant to furnish a drawing when the nature of the case admitted it.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 94–131 effective Jan. 24, 1978, and applicable on and after that date to patent applications filed in the United States and to international applications, where applicable, see section 11 of Pub. L. 94–131, set out as an Effective Date note under section 351 of this title.
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §34, part (R.S. 4889, amended Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 94, §2, 38 Stat. 958).
The requirement for signature in the corresponding section of existing statute is omitted; regulations of the Patent Office can take care of any substitute. A redundant clause is omitted.
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner".
1975—Pub. L. 94–131 substituted provisions respecting drawings requiring necessary-for-understanding drawings and submission of drawings within prescribed time period and limiting use of drawings submitted after filing date of application for prior provision requiring the applicant to furnish a drawing when the nature of the case admitted it.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.
Effective Date of 1975 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 94–131 effective Jan. 24, 1978, and applicable on and after that date to patent applications filed in the United States and to international applications, where applicable, see section 11 of Pub. L. 94–131, set out as an Effective Date note under section 351 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/113.