(a)(1) The Director may issue a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 254 to correct a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Office, which mistake is clearly disclosed in the records of the Office:
(i) At the request of the patentee or the patentee's assignee;
(ii) Acting sua sponte for mistakes that the Office discovers; or
(iii) Acting on information about a mistake supplied by a third party.
(2)(i) There is no obligation on the Office to act on or respond to a submission of information or request to issue a certificate of correction by a third party under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) Papers submitted by a third party under this section will not be made of record in the file that they relate to nor be retained by the Office.
(3) If the request relates to a patent involved in an interference or trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the request must comply with the requirements of this section and be accompanied by a motion under § 41.121(a)(2), § 41.121(a)(3), or § 42.20 of this title.
(4) The Office will not issue a certificate of correction under this section without first notifying the patentee (including any assignee of record) at the correspondence address of record as specified in § 1.33(a) and affording the patentee or an assignee an opportunity to be heard.
(b) If the nature of the mistake on the part of the Office is such that a certificate of correction is deemed inappropriate in form, the Director may issue a corrected patent in lieu thereof as a more appropriate form for certificate of correction, without expense to the patentee.
(35 U.S.C. 254)
[24 FR 10332, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 49 FR 48454, Dec. 12, 1984; 65 FR 54677, Sept. 8, 2000; 69 FR 50001, Aug. 12, 2004; 77 FR 46626, Aug. 6, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu, 369 F. Supp. 3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
· cites it 3× “On June 10, 2016, the USPTO mailed its decision on Nippon's request as to the '997 patent, stating that it considered the request "for the issuance of a Certificate of Correction under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.322 and/or 37 CFR 1.323." Id. at 86 (styled "Response to the…”
Alton B. Hornback v. United States, 405 F.3d 999 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“Hornback asked the PTO to issue a corrected patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.322 (b). The PTO apparently did not respond, and on June 26, 2001 Mr.”
Hornback v. United States, 98 F. App'x 850 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“In a letter dated August 14, 2000, he thus asked the PTO to issue a corrected patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.322 (b). The PTO apparently did not respond to that letter and so, on June 26, 2001, Hornback filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court, asking us to order…”
Leviton Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 304 F. Supp. 2d 726 (D. Maryland 2004).
“§ 254 ; 37 C.F.R. § 1.322 . MPEP section 1485 further states that “a determination as to whether an error has been made, the responsibility of the error, if any, and whether the error is of such a nature as to justify the issuance of a certificate of correction will be made by…”
Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Kappos (D.D.C. 2019).
· cites it 3× “On June 10, 2016, the USPTO mailed its decision on Nippon’s request as to the ‘997 patent, stating that it considered the request “for the issuance of a Certificate of Correction under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.322 and/or 37 CFR 1.323.” Id. at 86 (styled “Response to the…”
Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 551 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D.N.J. 2008).
· cites it 3× “On May 17, 2001, Roche mailed a request for a Certificate of Correction under 37 C.F.R. § 1.322 (“Rule 322 petition”) to correct the omission of inventors Charles A.”
Hornback v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“Hornback asked the PTO to issue a corrected patent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §1.322 (b). The PTO apparently did not respond, and on June 26, 2001 Mr.”
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.