35 U.S.C. § 375

Patent issued on international application: Effect

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

(a) A patent may be issued by the Director based on an international application designating the United States, in accordance with the provisions of this title. Such patent shall have the force and effect of a patent issued on a national application filed under the provisions of chapter 11.(b) Where due to an incorrect translation the scope of a patent granted on an international application designating the United States, which was not originally filed in the English language, exceeds the scope of the international application in its original language, a court of competent jurisdiction may retroactively limit the scope of the patent, by declaring it unenforceable to the extent that it exceeds the scope of the international application in its original language.(Added Pub. L. 94–131, § 1, Nov. 14, 1975, 89 Stat. 689; amended 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, §§ 3(g)(5), 20(j), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 288, 335.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2011—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(j), struck out “of this title” after “102(e)” and after “11”.

Pub. L. 112–29, § 3(g)(5), which directed substitution of “Such” for “Subject to section 102(e) of this title, such”, was executed by making the substitution for “Subject to section 102(e), such”, to reflect the probable intent of Congress, because the words “of this title” did not appear after “section 102(e)” subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 112–29, § 20(j). See note above and Effective Date of 2011 Amendment notes below.

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

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted “Director” for “Commissioner”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2011 Amendment

Amendment by section 3(g)(5) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to certain applications for patent and any patents issuing thereon, see section 3(n) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as an Effective Date of 2011 Amendment; Savings Provisions note under section 100 of this title.

Amendment by section 20(j) of 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

Section effective Jan. 24, 1978, and applicable to international and national applications filed, on and after that date, see section 11 of Pub. L. 94–131, set out as a note under section 351 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2008–2016 · leading case: Actelion Pharm. Ltd. v. Lee, 216 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Actelion Pharm. Ltd. v. Lee, 216 F. Supp. 3d 680 (E.D. Va. 2016). “” On January 26, 2012, the PTO issued a Notice of Acceptance of Application and a Filing Receipt indicating that the PTO had received “35 U.S.C. §§ 375 (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4) REQUIREMENTS” on January 12, 2012 and that January 16, 2012 was the “DATE OF COMPLETION OF ALL 35 U.”

Fisher Tool Co., Inc. v. Gillet Outillage, 530 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 35 U.S.C. § 375 (b) (courts won’t enforce claims that are expanded by a mistranslation).”

Fisher Tool Co., Inc v. Mayhew Steel Prods., Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). “See 35 U.S.C. § 375 (b) (courts won’t enforce claims that are expanded by a mistranslation).”

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.