35 U.S.C. § 113
Drawings
The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented. When the nature of such subject matter admits of illustration by a drawing and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the Director may require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from the sending of a notice thereof. Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used (i) to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or (ii) to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1961–2024 · leading case: Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 884 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “The written description does not require that every claimed element be illustrated in the figures, particularly in predictable arts and where the element not depicted is conventional and not "necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”
Autogiro Co. of Am. v. The United States, 384 F.2d 391 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “35 U.S.C. § 113 . In those instances where a visual representation can flesh out words, drawings may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specification.”
Nartron Corp. v. Borg Indak, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 725 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “§ 112 has requirements that are placed into effect so that the specification and drawings of a patent are set forth “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…”
In Re Amalgamated Dev. Co., Inc., 375 A.2d 494 (D.C. 1977). “V 1975), and official drawings, 35 U.S.C. § 113 (Supp. V 1975); advising of what action to take after rejection, including after final rejection; and preparing and filing amendments.”
Nicholas Straussler v. United States, 290 F.2d 827 (Ct. Cl. 1961). “35 U.S.C. § 113 . However, the Patent Act does not require the specification to contain an illustrated description of every possible infringing device in order that a patentee be protected against future infringement.”
Williams v. Gen. Surgical Innovations, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d 698 (E.D. Tex. 2002). “Title 35 U.S.C. § 113 . 3 . Title 35 U.S.C. § 112 .”
Freeman v. Gerber Prods. Co., 284 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Kan. 2003). “An entirely different statutory provision, 35 U.S.C. § 113 , is titled “Drawings.” It requires a patent applicant to “furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”
MacLaren v. B-I-W Grp. Inc., 401 F. Supp. 283 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “Claim 10 defines “an assembly as claimed in claim 1, wherein said second releasable means comprises a pair of strut members, each pivotally connected to one of said brace members and to a cross-frame.”
Pave Tech, Inc. v. Snap Edge Corp., 952 F. Supp. 1284 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “Under 35 U.S.C. § 113 , a patent may contain drawings, and where those representations can help explain the words of a claim, they "may be used in the same manner and with the same limitations as the specifications.”
Dow Chem. Co. v. Halliburton Co., 631 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Miss. 1985). “We also hold that the Lesinski patent is not invalid for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 113 because of failing to disclose Dow Vertan field procedures and inhibitor formulations in the Lesinski application.”
Ven-Tel, Inc. v. Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc., 982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “7 *1536 Likewise, we disagree with Ven-Tel that the ’302 patent failed to include adequate drawings under 35 U.S.C. § 113 (1988). According to section 113, “[t]he applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”
Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 623 F. Supp. 1344 (N.D. Cal. 1985). “The ’110 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 113 , second paragraph, because the claims are indefinite; they do not disclose how infringement may be avoided because antibody affinity cannot be estimated with any consistency.”
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.