FEDERAL · 35 U.S.C. · Chapter 25

Reissue of defective patents

35 U.S.C. § 251
Title35Patents
Chapter25 — AMENDMENT AND CORRECTION OF PATENTS

This text of 35 U.S.C. § 251 (Reissue of defective patents) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
35 U.S.C. § 251.

Text

(a)In General.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
(b)Multiple Reissued Patents.—The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee fo

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Martin Gardner Reiffin v. Microsoft Corporation
214 F.3d 1342 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
57 case citations
International Visual Corporation v. Crown Metal Manufacturing Co., Inc.
991 F.2d 768 (Federal Circuit, 1993)
46 case citations
Yoon Ja Kim v. Conagra Foods, Inc.
465 F.3d 1312 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
45 case citations
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.
493 F.3d 1368 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
27 case citations
Medtronic, Inc. v. Guidant Corporation
465 F.3d 1360 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
22 case citations
In re Dien
680 F.2d 151 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1982)
20 case citations
Vehicular Technologies Corp. v. Titan Wheel International, Inc.
212 F.3d 1377 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
18 case citations
Ethicon Endo-Surgery v. United States Surgical Corp.
900 F. Supp. 172 (S.D. Ohio, 1995)
5 case citations
Dow Corning Corp. v. General Electric Co.
461 F. Supp. 519 (N.D. New York, 1978)
5 case citations
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Lehman
959 F. Supp. 539 (District of Columbia, 1997)
4 case citations
Techler v. Norstrub
475 F.2d 1192 (Customs and Patent Appeals, 1973)
3 case citations
Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Avco Manufacturing Corp.
126 F. Supp. 595 (N.D. Illinois, 1954)
3 case citations
ArcelorMittal France v. AK Steel Corp.
989 F. Supp. 2d 364 (D. Delaware, 2013)
3 case citations
Haden Schweitzer Corp. v. Arthur B. Myr Industries, Inc.
901 F. Supp. 1235 (E.D. Michigan, 1995)
3 case citations
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
997 F. Supp. 459 (S.D. New York, 1998)
3 case citations
AIA Engineering Ltd. v. Magotteaux International S/A
657 F.3d 1250 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
2 case citations
Baker Hughes Inc. v. Kirk
921 F. Supp. 801 (District of Columbia, 1995)
1 case citations
E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Celanese Corp.
312 F. Supp. 772 (S.D. New York, 1970)

Source Credit

History

(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 106–113, div. B, §1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4732(a)(10)(A)], Nov. 29, 1999, 113 Stat. 1536, 1501A–582; Pub. L. 107–273, div. C, title III, §13206(b)(1)(B), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1906; Pub. L. 112–29, §§4(b)(2), 20(d), Sept. 16, 2011, 125 Stat. 296, 333.)

Editorial Notes

Historical and Revision Notes
Based on Title 35, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §64 (R.S. 4916, amended May 24, 1928, ch. 730, 45 Stat. 732.)
The sentences of the corresponding section of existing statute are rearranged and divided into two sections with some changes in language. The clause at the end of the present statute is omitted as obsolete.
The third paragraph incorporates by reference the requirements of other applications, and adds a new provision relating to application for reissue being made in certain cases by the assignee.
A two year period of limitation on applying for broadened reissues is added, codifying the present rule of decision with a fixed period.

Editorial Notes

Amendments
2011—Pub. L. 112–29, §20(d), designated first to fourth pars. as subsecs. (a) to (d), respectively, inserted headings, and, in subsec. (a), struck out "without any deceptive intention" after "error".
Pub. L. 112–29, §4(b)(2), in third par., inserted "or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest" after "claims of the original patent".
2002—Pub. L. 107–273 made technical correction to directory language of Pub. L. 106–113. See 1999 Amendment note below.
1999—Pub. L. 106–113, as amended by Pub. L. 107–273, substituted "Director" for "Commissioner" in first and second pars.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 2011 Amendment
Amendment by section 4(b)(2) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to any patent application that is filed on or after that effective date, see section 4(e) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 111 of this title.
Amendment by section 20(d) of Pub. L. 112–29 effective upon the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on Sept. 16, 2011, and applicable to proceedings commenced on or after that effective date, see section 20(l) of Pub. L. 112–29, set out as a note under section 2 of this title.

Effective Date of 1999 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 106–113 effective 4 months after Nov. 29, 1999, see section 1000(a)(9) [title IV, §4731] of Pub. L. 106–113, set out as a note under section 1 of this title.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 U.S.C. § 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/35/251.