Source: http://smiplaw.wordpress.com/category/patents/reissue/
Timestamp: 2014-03-10 12:07:26
Document Index: 138681441

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 08', '§251', '§1', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251', '§251']

Reissue | Stein McEwen Blawg
Posted on April 27, 2012 by mstein03	Reply	By Kevin M. Repper
Posted in Patents, Reissue	| Leave a reply
Posted on July 8, 2011 by SteinMcewen, LLP	Reply	In In re Tanaka, 98 USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Yasuhito Tanaka is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,093,991 (the ‘991 patent), which relates to a one-way clutch which improves the efficiency of an alternator. Tanaka filed reissue application Serial No. 10/201,948 (“the ′948 application”) in which he attempted to broaden the claims. After having the broader claims rejected, Tanaka revised the claims to correspond to the original claim scope, and added a new dependent claim. Continue reading →
Posted on June 6, 2010 by SteinMcewen, LLP	Reply	In MBO Lab., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 94 USPQ2d 1598 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2010), MBO owns U.S. Reissue Patent No. 36,885 (the “RE ’885 patent”). The Re’885 patent is directed to a syringe that protects against needle-stick injuries by sheathing a contaminated needle in a flange-covered guard. The RE ‘885 patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,755,699 (the “’699 patent”), and claims priority to, among other patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,176,655 (the “’655 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 5,395,347 (the “’347 patent”); and Application No. 08/398,772 (the “’772 application”).
Posted on December 1, 2006 by SteinMcewen, LLP	Reply	Reissue Not Restricted To Errors in Claims and Extends to Procedural Error Affecting Enforceability of Claims
In Medrad Inc. v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, 80 USPQ2d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit overturned a District Court finding of invalidity for a reissue patent due to a violation of 35 U.S.C. §251. Specifically, U.S. Reissue Patent No. 37,602 (hereinafter “the ‘602 reissue patent”) relates to patient infusion systems for use with magnetic resonance imaging systems. There are two predecessor patents to the ‘602 reissue patent, both of which were assigned to Medrad. The first predecessor patent was U.S. Patent No. 5,494,036 (hereinafter the “‘036 patent”), issued on February 27, 1996. On February 23, 1998, Medrad filed an application for reissue of the ‘036 patent and submitted reissue declarations stating that the inventors had claimed less than they had a right to claim (an “underclaiming” error). During prosecution of the reissue, Medrad narrowed the scope of various claims (correcting an “overclaiming” error) and corrected inventorship, in addition to correcting the underclaiming error. At the conclusion of prosecution, Medrad did not submit a supplemental reissue declaration for any errors other than those on which reissue had initially been granted as required by 37 C.F.R. §1.175. That reissue patent issued as U.S. Reissue Patent No. 36,648 (hereinafter the “‘648 reissue patent.”) On realizing this error, Medrad filed a second reissue patent application to submit the supplemental reissue declaration, and this second reissue patent application issued as the ‘602 reissue patent. On October 24, 2001, Medrad filed a complaint in district court against Tyco alleging infringement of the ‘602 reissue patent. Medrad and Tyco filed cross motions for summary judgment regarding the validity of the ‘602 reissue patent, and more specifically, regarding whether the failure of Medrad to file a supplemental declaration in the ’648 reissue patent qualified as an “error” under 35 U.S.C. §251. 35 U.S.C. §251 requires the following in regards to the error requirement: Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partially inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent.
The district court construed 35 U.S.C. §251 as requiring “that some error in the specification, drawings, or claim of the patent be corrected as a result of the reissue process.” Since Medrad’s reissue application for the ‘602 reissue patent only corrected a failure to submit a supplemental declaration, the district court granted Tyco’s motion for summary judgment, holding the ‘602 reissue patent invalid since 35 U.S.C. §251 does not provide for reissues based on these other errors. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that 35 U.S.C. §251 can be read to encompass any error that causes a patentee to claim more or less than he had a right to claim. In overturning the district court’s holding in regards to what constitutes an error correctable by 35 U.S.C. §251, the Federal Circuit restated its holding in In re Weiler, 790 F.2d 1576, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1986)that “in enacting [35 U.S.C. §251], Congress provided a statutory basis for correction of ‘error.’ The statute is remedial in nature, based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness, and should be construed liberally.” The plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. §251 indicates that the error involves rendering a patent wholly or partly invalid. Here, by including changes to the language of the claims that narrowed the scope of coverage and by correcting inventorship, the resulting ‘648 reissue patent claimed more than it had a right to claim in the patent without submitting a supplemental declaration to support the narrowing subject matter and the change in inventorship. The correction of such an error meets the express terms of 35 U.S.C. §251, and thus serves as a basis for reissue. As such, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding of invalidity as there was an error on which the ’648 reissue patent could be based.