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 | 10 min read | 03.19.26

Emotional Perception Redefines AI Patents: The UK Supreme Court’s Groundbreaking Shift in Computer-Implemented Inventions

[1] In a recent development, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) are not excluded from patentability due to being a computer program “as such.” In doing so, the Court set out the framework of a new test for the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to use when evaluating the patentability of computer. The ruling breaks down barriers to the patenting of AI algorithms in the UK and paves the way for a wider change in the UK IPO’s approach to assessing excluded subject matter....