35 U.S.C. § 254
Certificate of correction of Patent and Trademark Office mistake
Whenever a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, is clearly disclosed by the records of the Office, the Director may issue a certificate of correction stating the fact and nature of such mistake, under seal, without charge, to be recorded in the records of patents. A printed copy thereof shall be attached to each printed copy of the patent, and such certificate shall be considered as part of the original patent. Every such patent, together with such certificate, shall have the same effect and operation in law on the trial of actions for causes thereafter arising as if the same had been originally issued in such corrected form. The Director may issue a corrected patent without charge in lieu of and with like effect as a certificate of correction.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43
cases, 1992–2019 · leading case: Sw. Software, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Harlequin Inc., Harlequin Ltd., & Ecrm Trust, 226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Sw. Software, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Harlequin Inc., Harlequin Ltd., & Ecrm Trust, 226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Specifically, because we hold that a certificate of correction that was issued under 35 U.S.C. § 254 to add certain material to the ’257 patent is not effective for purposes of this action, the district court must determine on remand whether, absent the added material, claim 1…”
E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, LLC, 525 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “After issuance, DuPont sought a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 254 to add a reference to the provisional application on the title page of the '859 patent.”
Novo Indus., L.P., Plaintiff-Cross v. Micro Molds Corp., & Oscar Helver, 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “35 U.S.C. § 254 (2000). 4 . These provisions were enacted by subsections 7(f) and (g) of the Trademark Act of 1946, Pub.”
Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “” Superior’s first request was filed on February 16, 1999, under 35 U.S.C. § 254 , which applies only to the correction of mistakes made by the PTO.”
Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, 875 F. Supp. 2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “On August 12, 2010, after the priority of the '905 Patent became an issue in this litigation, Kobayashi requested from the PTO a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 254 and 255 to change the patent’s claim of priority to the '235 Application and '456 Patent.”
Grp. One Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., Defendant-Cross, 407 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “The district court held that it lacked authority to correct the error, and that only the PTO could correct the printing error acting under 35 U.S.C. § 254 . Id. Group One argues that the district court was wrong and that Hallmark’s argument supporting the district court is…”
Stand. Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “” Under 35 U.S.C. § 254 (1988), a Certificate of Correction is part of the patent.”
Steven M. Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., & Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., & Ariba Inc., 405 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Hoffer obtained a certificate of correction in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 254 after this action was filed, changing the antecedent claim “38” to “21.”
Lamoureux v. AnazaoHealth Corp., 669 F. Supp. 2d 227 (D. Conn. 2009). “The Impact of the Certificate of Correction Initially, the Court must determine whether additional wording added to the '760 Patent by the certificate of correction issued on November 25, 2003, should be considered in this infringement action, which was filed prior thereto.”
Nalco Co. v. Turner Designs, Inc., 73 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2014). “Indeed, 35 U.S.C. § 254 authorizes correction certificates “whenever a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, is clearly disclosed by the record of the Office.”
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu, 369 F. Supp. 3d 226 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “ertificates of correction, did not constitute "impermissible arbitrary and capricious treatment under the APA" because it specifically identified the procedural infirmities in Nippon's requests in different responses-Nippon filed the request for the '302 patent outside of the…”
Cbt Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 654 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “We concluded that the enactment of 35 U.S.C. §§ 254 and 255 did not overrule Essex or deny authority to the district courts to correct a claim in appropriate circumstances.”
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.