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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...