37 C.F.R. § 1.171
Application for reissue
An application for reissue must contain the same parts required for an application for an original patent, complying with all the rules relating thereto except as otherwise provided, and in addition, must comply with the requirements of the rules relating to reissue applications.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 525 F. Supp. 1298 (D. Del. 1981).
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 525 F. Supp. 1298 (D. Del. 1981). “) After commencement of this action, Mobil filed an application for reissue of the 437 patent with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 et seq. and moved to stay this litigation pending the outcome of the PTO proceeding.”
Pic Inc. v. Prescon Corp., 485 F. Supp. 1302 (D. Del. 1980). “Following commencement of this litigation, Lang filed an application for reissue of the Lang patent with the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) under 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 and plaintiff moved to stay the litigation pending the PTO’s decision.”
Diaz v. Matal, 268 F. Supp. 3d 267 (D. Mass. 2017). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 . The regulations also require that: The inventor’s oath or declaration' for a .”
Nat'l Bus. Sys., Inc. v. AM Int'l, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 340 (N.D. Ill. 1982). “§ 251 ; Rule 171, 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 . However, 35 U.S.C. § 252 , entitled “Effect of Reissue,” specifically states that the surrender of the original patent does not take effect until the issuance of the reissue patent.”
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 462 F. Supp. 732 (D. Del. 1978). “On October 19, 1978, Mobil applied for reissue of its 437 patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 et seq. (1977). The recently *734 modified reissue procedure 2 enables a patentee, like Mobil, to seek reconsideration of an original patent in view of prior art and other information…”
Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 530 F. Supp. 303 (N.D. Tex. 1981). “§§ 251-256 and PTO rules set forth at 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 et seq., and for dismissal of this action pending a reissue decision.”
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 718 F. Supp. 274 (D. Del. 1989). “Patent 3,979,437 under 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 et seq. (1977). The then recently modified reissue procedures enabled a patentee to seek reconsideration of an issued patent in view of relevant information or prior art not previously considered by the Patent Office.”
Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Milgo Elec. Corp., 416 F. Supp. 951 (S.D.N.Y. 1976). “§ 251 ; Rule 171, 37 C.F.R. § 1.171 . However, 35 U.S.C. § 252 specifically states that the surrender of the original patent does not take effect until the issuance of the reissue patent.”
RCA Corp. v. Applied Digit. Data Sys., Inc., 467 F. Supp. 99 (D. Del. 1979). “Under the regulations promulgated pursuant to that provision, 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.171 to 1.179, 5 it is clear that only the patent owner may apply for reissue of the patent.”
Ecore Int'l, Inc. v. Downey, 343 F. Supp. 3d 459 (1st Cir. 2018). “The patent reissue application requirements are set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.171 -1.179. The Reissued Patent is attached to the parties' submissions as: Pl.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.