37 C.F.R. § 1.323
Certificate of correction of applicant's mistake
The Office may issue a certificate of correction under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 255 at the request of the patentee or the patentee's assignee, upon payment of the fee set forth in § 1.20(a). 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu, 369 F. Supp. 3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu, 369 F. Supp. 3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “322 and/or 37 CFR 1.323." Id. at 86 (styled "Response to the Request for Certificate of Correction").”
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 914 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “Barry then filed a motion to correct under 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 . The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied the motion, expressing uncertainty about why the mistake had happened and why Dr.”
Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “§ 255 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 . The questionnaire is dated June 29, 1999 and is included in the prosecution history.”
Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, 875 F. Supp. 2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “” (emphasis added)); 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 ("The Office may issue a certificate of correction under the conditions specified in 35 U.”
Bayer Ag & Bayer Corp. v. Carlsbad Tech., Inc., 298 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “§ 255 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 . Decision, at 2-3. Nonetheless, because 35 U.”
Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “Shockley filed an ex parte request for a Certificate of Correction under 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 with the USPTO, requesting addition of the “plurality of castors” limitation to claim 14 of the '732 reissue.”
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 3d 793 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “§ 255; see also 37 C.F.R. 1.323 (stating that if the PTAB rejects a Certificate of Correction, “reissue must be employed as the vehicle to correct the patent”).”
Nichols Inst. Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Lab'y, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (S.D. Cal. 2002). “The parties to the patent also sought a Certificate of Correction to add certain language to the body of the '790 Patent, a procedure that they designated as authorized by PTO Form 1050, which appears to be the form used by the PTO for correction of an applicant’s mistake…”
Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Arkema Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019). “37 C.F.R. § 1.323 ; Manual of Pa- tent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 1485; see also 37 C.”
Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Kappos (D.D.C. 2019). “322 and/or 37 CFR 1.323.” Id. at 86 (styled “Response to the Request for Certificate of Correction”).”
Theta IP, LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd. (W.D. Tex. 2021). “On November 21, 2019, Theta submitted a Request for Certificate of Correction Due to Applicant’s Mistake (the “Request”) under 37 CFR § 1.323 . Id. at p. 2 . The Request sought to change a word in element (iv) of Claim 1 from “increase” to “decrease.”
Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2025). “The PTO denied Canatex’s proposed correction in March 2025, stating without elaboration that the “corrections requested [sought] to change the scope of the patented claims.”
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.