37 C.F.R. § 1.312
Amendments after allowance
No amendment may be made as a matter of right in an application after the mailing of the notice of allowance. Any amendment filed pursuant to this section must be filed before or with the payment of the issue fee, and may be entered on the recommendation of the primary examiner, approved by the Director, without withdrawing the application from issue.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “" Superior did submit an amendment under 37 C.F.R. 1.312 ("section 312 amendment") three months later, on June 11, 1997, making at least forty separate changes to the specification.”
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2006). “157); and, (6) That aspect of Avocent’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that, “under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 , Avocent and its patent agent, Mr.”
N. Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “After the PTO issued the notice of allowance, but before payment of the issue fee, Sycor requested amendment of the descriptive text of the patent application as authorized by PTO Rule 312, 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 (1969), which provided as follows: § 1.”
The Regents of the Univ. of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “UC’s later-filed amendment pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 (1983) ("Amendments after allowance”), in which it argued that the claims as allowed would not necessarily encompass the "trivial” oligo-dC and oligo-dG ends actually used to construct the plasmid of the '740 patent, also…”
In Re Skvorecz, 580 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Skvorecz filed an amendment under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 to correct Figures 12 and 13 in the patent application, for which the PTO had prepared final drawings, as the rules provide.”
Gaf Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Dallas, 90 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “” 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 (b) (1994). 5 . As the district court recognized, GAF's "Amended Complaint,” alleging that the '144 patent had issued, should have been denominated a supplemental pleading, since it "set[] forth transactions or occurrences or events which .”
Diaz v. Matal, 268 F. Supp. 3d 267 (D. Mass. 2017). “Plaintiff sought to amend the title and abstract of the allowed patent application on November 11, 2015, by submitting an amendment after allowance under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 10 titled “Continuation-in-Part Application.”
Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elec., Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant, 847 F.2d 819 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The district court determined that a European patent application which was disclosed to the patent examiner in a Rule 312 amendment, 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 , was reasonably timely disclosed and was not material to the prosecution of the Knop patent.”
Dresser Indus., Inc. v. United States, 193 Ct. Cl. 140 (Ct. Cl. 1970). “Role 312 ( 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 ) provides: Amendments after the notice of allowance of an application will not be permitted as a matter of right, but may be made, if the printing of the specification has not begun, on the recommendation of the primary examiner, approved by the…”
Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2002). “After the claims were allowed, but before the patent was issued, Chiron sought two “post allowance” amendments pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 (a). The first amendment revised the definition of monoclonal antibody to “encompass[ ] only subject matter that was encompassed by the…”
Abraxis Bioscience, LLC v. Kappos, 10 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2014). “Moreover, MPEP § 1305 expressly contemplates further examination after a Notice of Allowance is issued: namely, reviewing ' and entering amendments upon the recommendation of the examiner and with the approval of the Director, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 . As noted, the…”
Heterochemical Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., 368 F.2d 169 (7th Cir. 1966). “Now Rule 312, 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 (1960). 2 . GR-S (Government Rubber Styrene) was the chief synthetic rubber made in the United States under the Rubber Reserve Program of World War II.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.312(a) — 1 case
Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Clearcube Tech., Inc., 443 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ala. 2006). “157); and, (6) That aspect of Avocent’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that, “under 37 C.F.R. § 1.312 , Avocent and its patent agent, Mr.”
— 37 C.F.R. § 1.312(b) — 1 case
A & E Prods. Grp., L.P. v. Mainetti USA Inc., 301 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
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.