U.S. Code » Title 35 » Part PART III— PATENTS AND PROTECTION OF PATENT RIGHTS › Chapter CHAPTER 25— AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION OF PATENTS

35 U.S.C. § 255

Certificate of correction of applicant’s mistake

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

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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Superior Fireplace Co. v. The Majestic Prods. Co. & Vermont Castings, Inc., Defendants-Cross, 270 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 13× “” 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). · cites it 4× “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). · cites it 7× “) 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). · cites it 3× “” 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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 3× “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). · cites it 2× “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). · cites it 2× “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…”
Show all 59 citing cases →
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.