37 C.F.R. § 1.172
Reissue applicant
(a) The reissue applicant is the original patentee, or the current patent owner if there has been an assignment. A reissue application must be accompanied by the written consent of all assignees, if any, currently owning an undivided interest in the patent. All assignees consenting to the reissue must establish their ownership in the patent by filing in the reissue application a submission in accordance with the provisions of § 3.73(c) of this chapter.
(b) A reissue will be granted to the original patentee, his legal representatives or assigns as the interest may appear.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse & David S. Riddle, 953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In Re James R. Amos, Chester K. Greathouse & David S. Riddle, 953 F.2d 613 (Fed. Cir. 1991). “37 C.F.R. § 1.172 (a) (1988); see 35 U.S.”
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 525 F. Supp. 1298 (D. Del. 1981). “A protestor initially may file with the Examiner any papers or documents which rebut the assertions made by the patentee in the reissue application, including citations of prior art and information relating thereto.”
In re Dien, 680 F.2d 151 (C.C.P.A. 1982). “5, and 37 CFR 1.172. However, to prevent confusion, we continue the title of the appeal as filed.”
Johnson & Johnson, Inc. v. Wallace A. Erickson & Co., 627 F.2d 57 (7th Cir. 1980). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.172 . Effective March 1,1977, the Commissioner amended 37 C.”
In Re Richard N. Bennett, 766 F.2d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “37 C.F.R. § 1.172 (a). The Board concluded that the substitute declaration by the inventor Bennett, which was filed more than two years after the grant of the original patent, could not cure the defect in the reissue application, citing the absence of statutory authorization to…”
Earth Resources Corp. v. United States, 44 Fed. Cl. 274 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “37 C.F.R. 1.172. Regulation section 1.47 is also relevant to this case: (a) If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself or herself and…”
United States Filter Corp. v. Ionics, Inc., 68 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D. Mass. 1999). “37 C.F.R. § 1.172 . It is also undisputed that plaintiffs did not intend to deceive or defraud the PTO.”
Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 600 F. Supp. 1015 (N.D. Ga. 1984). “Judge Evans found that 37 C.F.R. § 1.172 (a) showed that this was the understanding of the Patent and Trademark Office.”
Satchell v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). “37 C.F.R. § 1.172 (2013); see ECF 7-1 at 77.”
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.