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. § 256

Correction of named inventor

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 35 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Correction.—Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error.(b)Patent Valid if Error Corrected.—The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section. The court before which such matter is called in question may order correction of the patent on notice and hearing of all parties concerned and the Director shall issue a certificate accordingly.(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 810; Pub. L. 97–247, § 6(b), Aug. 27, 1982, 96 Stat. 320; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, § 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, § 13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(f), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 334.)Historical and Revision Notes

This section is new and is companion to section 116.

The first two paragraphs provide for the correction of the inadvertent joining or nonjoining of a person as a joint inventor. The third paragraph provides that a patent shall not be invalid for such cause, and also provides that a court may order correction of a patent; the two sentences of this paragraph are independent.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Pub. L. 112–29 designated first and second pars. as subsecs. (a) and (b), respectively, inserted headings, and, in subsec. (a), struck out “and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part” after “not named in an issued patent”.

2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.

1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner” in two places.

1982—Pub. L. 97–247 substituted “Correction of named inventor” for “Misjoinder of inventor” as section catchline and, in text, substituted “Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent and such error arose without any deceptive intention on his part, the Commissioner may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate correcting such error” for “Whenever a patent is issued on the application of persons as joint inventors and it appears that one of such persons was not in fact a joint inventor, and that he was included as a joint inventor by error and without any deceptive intention, the Commissioner may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate deleting the name of the erroneously joined person from the patent”, substituted “The error of omitting inventors or naming persons who are not inventors shall not invalidate the patent in which such error occurred if it can be corrected as provided in this section” for “Whenever a patent is issued and it appears that a person was a joint inventor, but was omitted by error and without deceptive intention on his part, the Commissioner may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed, issue a certificate adding his name to the patent as a joint inventor”, and struck out provision that the misjoinder or nonjoinder of joint inventors not invalidate a patent, if such error could be corrected as provided in this section.

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 proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, § 4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–247 effective six months after Aug. 27, 1982, see section 17(c) of Pub. L. 97–247, set out as an Effective Date note under section 294 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 425 cases (97 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu \Paul\" Chu", 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu \Paul\" Chu", 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 16× “Appellants Pei-Herng Hor (“Hor”) and Ruling Meng (“Meng”) filed this suit against Appellee Ching-Wu Chu (“Chu”) under 35 U.S.C. § 256 for correction of inventor- ship of U.”
Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead, 832 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “, and Bryant Hickman (“Hickman”) (collectively “NanoVapor”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to have Nathan and Matheson recognized as joint inventors under 35 U.S.C. § 256 on NanoVapor’s U.S. Patent Nos.”
Larson v. Correct Craft, Inc., 569 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “Correct Craft removed the case to federal court on the ground that the declaratory-judgment counts, although nominally pleaded under Florida law, were in substance claims to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 . At oral argument, we raised the question of whether the…”
Joany Chou v. The Univ. of Chicago & Arch Dev. Corp., & Bernard Roizman, & Aviron Co., 254 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 5× “Because the district court erred in its determination that Chou did not have standing to sue for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 , we reverse its judgment as to that claim.”
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., Defendant-Cross, 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “In the district court, Lilly brought a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to address the alleged omission of Drs.”
Coda Dev. S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 916 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 3× “-Whenever through error a person is named in an issued patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an issued patent, the Director may, on application of all the parties and assignees, with proof of the facts and such other requirements as may be imposed,…”
Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC, 391 F. Supp. 3d 265 (S.D. Ill. 2019). · cites it 5× “Sweet granted summary judgment dismissing Ferring's correction of inventorship claims. He concluded that Ferring was equitably estopped from challenging Dr.”
Shum v. Intel Corp., 499 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 6× “Shum appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing his claims for correction of inventorship pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 and various state law claims, including fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary…”
Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “See 35 U.S.C. § 256 . Shum also asserted numerous claims under California law, all of which allegedly stemmed from the sale of Verdiell's company, LightLogic, Inc.”
Dr. David D. Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., & Jerome Goldstein, Ernest v. Groman & Lee Josephson, 29 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 6× “He asserted that he is the sole or a joint inventor of the subject matter claimed in the patents and requested correction of inventorship in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 256 . Dr. Stark also charged AMI with breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of implied…”
Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washington, 684 F. App'x 985 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “Ali filed a complaint against Carnegie in the Ore- gon court, which he would later amend to join UMass as a co-defendant, seeking to become a named co-inventor to the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 256 (2012) (inven- torship claim), as well as to recover damages from UMass…”
Ethicon, Inc. & Inbae Yoon, M.D. v. United States Surgical Corp. & Young Jae Choi, 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “Surgical’s motion to correct inventorship of the ’773 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 256 , the district court ruled that Choi was an omitted co-inventor of two claims, see 937 F.”
Show all 425 citing cases →
— 35 U.S.C. § 256(2012) — 1 case
Astellas Inst. for Regenerative Med. v. ImStem Biotechnology, Inc. (D. Mass. 2018).
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.