35 U.S.C. § 255
Certificate of correction of applicant’s mistake
Whenever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, appears in a patent and a showing has been made that such mistake occurred in good faith, the Director may, upon payment of the required fee, issue a certificate of correction, if the correction does not involve such changes in the patent as would constitute new matter or would require re-examination. Such patent, together with the 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “” Superior then filed a request under 35 U.S.C. § 255 , which applies only to the correction of mistakes made by the applicant.”
Novo Indus., L.P., Plaintiff-Cross v. Micro Molds Corp., & Oscar Helver, 350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Although the parties now agree that claim 13 included an error, Novo never sought or obtained a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).”
Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012). “) On March 1, 2011, the PTO granted Pfizer’s request, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255 , to correct this gap and to change the priority filing date of the '175 Patent.”
Sw. Software, Inc., Plaintiff-Cross v. Harlequin Inc., Harlequin Ltd., & Ecrm Trust, 226 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “” As in effect for purposes of Eagle Iron Works , that statute provided as follows: Whenever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent Office, appears in a patent and a showing has been made that such mistake…”
Chef Am., Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The patentees made no attempt to have such an error corrected, either by obtaining a certificate of correction from the Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255 , or by action of the district court.”
Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. Tnwk Corp. (Formerly Known as Pac. Fitness Corp.), 162 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Subsequently, he submitted a request under 35 U.S.C. § 255 for a certificate of correction to cancel the same claims.”
Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., & the Regents of the Univ. of California, 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993). “Genentech also states that the University committed fraud in the patent office in obtaining a Certificate of Correction under conditions that Genentech alleges did not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 255 . Such acts if proved would in any event violate the patent law, and…”
Zimmer Surgical, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 365 F. Supp. 3d 466 (D. Del. 2019). “" 35 U.S.C. § 255 . Claims in continuation-in-part applications may receive different priority dates.”
Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 3d 793 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “See 35 US.C. § 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”).”
Stand. Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “See also 35 U.S.C. § 255 (1988). 9 . In ruling on such a motion, a critical question will be whether the alleged error in admitting the document was harmless, i.”
Arthrocare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 310 F. Supp. 2d 638 (D. Del. 2004). “Congress enabled a patent applicant to correct errors in a patent due to the applicant’s mistake in 35 U.S.C. § 255 . This section provides: Whenever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark…”
Japanese Found. for Cancer Rsch. v. Lee, 773 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “This statutory section provides that a certificate of correction may be issued “[w]henever a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character, which was not the fault of the Patent and Trademark Office, appears in a patent and a showing has been made that…”
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.