May 25, 2012

USPTO Implements New Policy Change on Reissues in View of Recent Federal Circuit Decision

On July 2008, MPEP §1402 was revised to state:

“An error under 35 U.S.C. 251 has not been presented where a reissue application only adds one or more claims that is/are narrower than one or more broader existing patent claims without either narrowing the broader patent claim by amendment or canceling the broader patent claim. A reissue application in which the only error specified to support reissue is the failure to include one or more claims that is/are narrower than at least one of the existing patent claim(s) without an allegation that one or more of the broader patent claim(s) is/are too broad together with an amendment to such claim(s), does not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 251. Such a reissue application should not be allowed.”

On April 15, 2011, however, the Federal Circuit held that patent applicants can file a reissue application that retains all original claims and adds only dependent claims. In re Yasuhito Tanaka (Fed. Cir., April 15, 2011). The Federal Circuit held that §251 provides “[w]henever any patent is… deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid… by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall…reissue the patent…” Relying on precedent, the Federal Circuit noted that the term “less” means including fewer claims in the application than the patentee could have properly included rather than referring to claiming a narrower scope of protection than the patentee was entitled to claim. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that patent applicants can file a reissue application for purposes of adding only additional dependent claims.

Based on the Court’s ruling in In re Tanaka, in August 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a new policy:

“Where the only change to a patent made in an application for its reissue is the addition of a claim or claims that is/are narrower in scope than the existing patent claims, without any narrowing of the existing patent claims, the application claims are not to be rejected as failing to state an error under 35 U.S.C. §251. In addition, any rejection of record in a pending application on this basis will be withdrawn, and any new Office action issued will inform applicant of the withdrawal, and the resulting status of the application in view of the withdrawal.”

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Babak Akhlaghi is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  He focuses his practice on patent prosecution, reexamination and licensing. 

202-756-8327

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.