Inter Partes Reexamination Not Limited To First Application In Chain Of Applications
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.29.08
In Cooper Technologies Company v. Dudas and Thomas & Betts Corporation (No. 2008-1130, August 19, 2008), the Federal Circuit affirms the interpretation of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) that utility, plant and design applications, including first filed applications, continuations, divisionals, continuations-in-part, continued prosecution applications and the national stage phase of international applications are subject to inter partes reexamination, in contrast to Appellant's contention that only the first application in a chain of applications from which priority is claimed is subject to inter partes reexamination. The Federal Circuit explains that because the Patent Office is specifically charged with administering statutory provisions relating to "the conduct of proceedings in the Office," the Federal Circuit gives Chevron deference to the Patent Office's interpretations of those provisions. The Federal Circuit concludes that the Patent Office's interpretation is reasonable and is entitled to Chevron deference.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
