35 U.S.C. § 112

Specification

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)In General.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.(b)Conclusion.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.(c)Form.—A claim may be written in independent or, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form.(d)Reference in Dependent Forms.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.(e)Reference in Multiple Dependent Form.—A claim in multiple dependent form shall contain a reference, in the alternative only, to more than one claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the particular claim in relation to which it is being considered.(f)Element in Claim for a Combination.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 798; Pub. L. 89–83, § 9, July 24, 1965, 79 Stat. 261; Pub. L. 94–131, § 7, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 691; Pub. L. 112–29, § 4(c), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 296.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 33 (R.S. 4888, amended (1) Mar. 3, 1915, ch. 94, § 1, 38 Stat. 958; (2) May 23, 1930, ch. 312, § 2, 46 Stat. 376).

The sentence relating to signature of the specification is omitted in view of the general requirement for a signature in section 111.

The last sentence is omitted for inclusion in the chapter relating to plant patents.

The clause relating to machines is omitted as unnecessary and the requirement for disclosing the best mode of carrying out the invention is stated as generally applicable to all types of invention (derived from Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., § 69, first defense).

The clause relating to the claim is made a separate paragraph to emphasize the distinction between the description and the claim or definition, and the language is modified.

A new paragraph relating to functional claims is added.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Pub. L. 112–29 designated first to sixth pars. as subsecs. (a) to (f), respectively, inserted headings, in subsec. (a), substituted “or joint inventor of carrying out the invention” for “of carrying out his invention”, in subsec. (b), substituted “inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention” for “applicant regards as his invention”, and, in subsec. (d), substituted “Subject to subsection (e),” for “Subject to the following paragraph,”.

1975—Pub. L. 94–131 substituted provision authorizing the writing of claims, if the nature of the case admits, in dependent or multiple dependent form for prior provision for writing claims in dependent form, required claims in dependent form to contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, substituted text respecting construction of a claim in dependent form so as to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers for prior text for construction of a dependent claim to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim, and inserted paragraph respecting certain requirements for claims in multiple dependent form.

1965—Pub. L. 89–83 permitted a claim to be written in independent or dependent form, and if in dependent form, required it to be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent application that is filed on or after that effective date, see section 4(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 111 of this title.

Effective Date of 1975 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 94–131 effective Jan. 24, 1978, and applicable on and after that date to patent applications filed in the United States and to international applications, where applicable, see section 11 of Pub. L. 94–131, set out as an Effective Date note under section 351 of this title.

Effective Date of 1965 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 89–83 effective three months after July 24, 1965, see section 7(a) of Pub. L. 89–83, set out as a note under section 41 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4,798 cases (680 in the last 5 years), 1952–2026 · leading case: Richard Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Richard Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 35× “Because the district court correctly construed the limitation “distributed learning control module,” we affirm the judgment of invalidity of claims 8– 12 of the ’840 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112 2, para. 2. Accordingly, we remand.”

Cox Commc'ns, Inc. v. Sprint Commc'n Co., 838 F.3d 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 16× “6,452,932; 6,463,052; 6,633,561; 7,286,561; 6,298,064; and 6,473,429 (collectively, “the asserted patents”) are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , ¶ 2. Because “pro- cessing system” does not prevent the claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution…”

Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 18× “The district court also inval- idated claim 10 of the ’055 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (d). Multilayer v. Inteplast, 2013 WL 5972195 , at *39–40.”

Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 22× “7,672,681 (“the ’681 patent”) (together, the “patents-in-suit”) invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112 , ¶ 6, and that the claims are indefinite under 35 U.”

Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., A/K/A Smc Corp., & Smc Pneumatics, Inc., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 25× “Additionally, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that the patent specification describe, enable, and set forth the best mode of carrying out the invention, 35 U.”

Ddr Holdings, LLC v. hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 10× “§ 101 be- cause the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 1 because the terms “look and feel” and “visually perceptible elements” are indefinite.”

Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., 222 F. Supp. 2d 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). · cites it 17× “It is a fundamental concept in patent claim drafting that each element of a claim must have an antecedent basis; otherwise, the claim would be rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 . Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2173.”

Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., Inc. & Darragh Co., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 9× “Because claims 1-4, 13, and 23 of the ’220 patent are indefinite, we reverse the district court’s holding that those claims are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 . We affirm the district court’s finding that Bartell has not established the intent to deceive necessary to its…”

Inre: Packard, 751 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 22× “Packard’s applied-for patent claims indefinite, and there- fore not in compliance with the statutory drafting re- quirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b), which provide that the specification conclude with “one or more claims particu- larly pointing out and distinctly claiming” the…”

In re Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977). · cites it 23× “Rejections The following rejections were affirmed by the board: (1) Claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 , first paragraph, 8 as “based on a non-enabling disclosure.”

Herbert Markman & Positek, Inc. v. Westview Instruments, Inc. & Althon Enter., Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 7× “35 U.S.C. § 112 , para. 1. Section 112, para.”

Amgen, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Chugai Pharm. Co., Ltd., & Genetics Inst., Inc., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991). · cites it 13× “§§ 102 (g) and 103; 2) the ’008 patent is enforceable; 3) the failure of Amgen to deposit the best mode host cells was not a violation of the best mode requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ; and 4) claims 4 and 6 of GI’s '195 patent are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.”

Show all 4,798 citing cases →

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(1) — 1 case

Hyatt v. Matal (D.D.C. 2018).

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(6) — 1 case

Cellwitch Inc. v. Tile, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024).

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) — 2 cases

In Re Pen (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Emissive Energy Corp. v. Olight Store USA, Inc. (D.N.J. 2026).

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) — 3 cases

Resh, Inc v. Skimlite Mfg. Inc (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Enviro Tech Chem. Servs., Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2026).

Emissive Energy Corp. v. Olight Store USA, Inc. (D.N.J. 2026).

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) — 1 case

Advanced Accelerator Applications, USA, Inc., & Advanced Accelerator Applications, SA v. Lantheus Med. Imaging, Inc (D. Del. 2026).

— 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) — 3 cases

Orange Elec. Co. Ltd. v. Autel Intelligent Tech. Corp., Ltd. (E.D. Tex. 2023).

SQWIN SA v. Walmart Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2023).

Int'l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Rakuten, Inc. (D. Del. 2023).

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.