USPTO Plans to Require U.S.-Licensed Agents for Foreign-Domiciled Patent Applicants

Foreign-domiciled patent applicants may face new filing requirements in 2026. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) proposed a rule that would require patent applicants or owners domiciled outside the United States or its territories to be represented by a USPTO-registered patent practitioner.

The USPTO plans to implement this rule by making changes to 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.31 – .33, and 1.9. The requirement applies to all types of patent applications — utility, design and plant.

The proposed rule also provides a definition of “domicile” in § 1.9(p): for natural persons, it means their permanent legal place of residence; for juristic entities, it means their principal place of business.

While foreign-domiciled parties may still file an initial application and pay filing fees, all other and subsequent submissions, including amendments and other replies, application data sheets (ADS), information disclosure statements or petitions must be signed by a registered practitioner. Improperly signed papers will not be entered into the record and may be dismissed without consideration.

The USPTO is pursuing this amendment for three primary reasons:

1. It seeks to harmonize U.S. practice with other major intellectual property offices, most of which already require foreign applicants to use local licensed representatives.
2. The rule is intended to improve efficiency by reducing applicant errors and resource burdens caused by pro se foreign filings, which often require significant USPTO intervention to correct procedural defects.
3. The USPTO aims to enforce compliance with U.S. statutes and regulations and mitigate fraud and abuse, particularly false certifications related to micro-entity status and expedited processing requests.

By requiring representation, the USPTO ensures accountability through practitioners who are subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct and disciplinary oversight. Under the current rules, a foreign pro se applicant had no such governing body to follow.

Enforcement of this new amendment will generally rely on the information provided by the applicants and inventors in the ADS or the inventor’s oath or declaration to determine domicile. But the USPTO may consult other sources, such as the notarized Patent Electronic System Verification forms, to confirm accuracy of an applicant’s inputted or alleged domicile. If any applicant among joint applicants or any patent owner is foreign-domiciled, representation by a registered practitioner becomes mandatory.

All submissions are subject to the certification obligations under § 11.18, which requires all certifications to be made according “to the best of the party’s knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” Violations may result in sanctions, including termination of proceedings and disciplinary action against the responsible party.

According to the USPTO and a 2022 fiscal year data survey, this new amendment will only affect around 0.24% of all USPTO patent applicants, or just over 1,200 individual persons or legal entities. The USPTO emphasizes that this change is procedural and does not alter substantive patent rights. It voluntarily seeks public comment by the Jan. 28 deadline.

Please contact Jack LeDoux or any member of the Phelps intellectual property team if you have questions or need advice.