1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Certificate Of Correction That Broadens Is Invalid

Certificate Of Correction That Broadens Is Invalid

Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.09.07

In Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.c., (No. 2006-1307, April 3, 2007), the Federal Circuit vacates a finding of patent infringement involving a chemical solution used during heart surgery and remands for redetermination of infringement under the patent’s original claims, uncorrected by an invalid certificate of correction. Summary judgment that the patent is not invalid is, however, affirmed.

The Federal Circuit panel disagrees with the district court’s determination that a certificate of correction of the patent, changing the word “osmolarity” to the word “osmolality” was appropriate. “Osmolarity” is the amount of solute per liter of total solution (mOsmol/L), and “osmolality” the amount of solute per kilogram of solvent (mOsmol/kg). In the asserted claims, a solution having an “osmolarity . . . of between about 400-500 mOsmol” was initially claimed, but was by the certificate to read “osmolality”. Because of the change in the range, the accused solution is more likely to infringe the corrected claims.

Invalidating a certificate of correction for impermissible broadening of the claims, says the panel, requires proof that the corrected claims are broader than the original claims, and that the presence of the error in the original claims, or how to correct it, is not clearly evident to one of skill in the art. The panel reasons that in the original claims, the word “osmolarity” is spelled correctly and reads logically in the context of the sentence. And because the error corrected by the certificate was not clearly evident to one of skill in the art, the result of the correction was to broaden the claims.

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.04.25

District Court Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Seller of Gray Market Snack Food Products

On November 12, 2025, Judge King in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted in part Haldiram India Ltd.’s (“Plaintiff” or “Haldiram”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Punjab Trading, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Punjab Trading”), a seller alleged to be importing and distributing gray market snack food products not authorized for sale in the United States. The court found that Haldiram was likely to succeed on the merits of its trademark infringement claim because the products at issue, which were intended for sale in India, were materially different from the versions intended for sale in the U.S., and for this reason were not genuine products when sold in the U.S. Although the court narrowed certain overbroad provisions in the requested order, it ultimately enjoined Punjab Trading from importing, selling, or assisting others in selling the non-genuine Haldiram products in the U.S. market....