Patent Owner Granted Leave in IPR to Seek Correction of Claims Held Indefinite in Parallel District Court Litigation

Jan 29, 2021

Reading Time : 2 min

The petitioner in this case sought IPR of some, but not all, claims of the patent under review. After considering the patent owner’s preliminary response, the board instituted trial. Soon after institution, the patent owner filed its motion seeking leave to petition the Director for a certificate of correction related to certain claims not under review in the IPR. According to the patent owner, those claims included a mistake correctable under § 255. The petitioner filed an opposition and the patent owner subsequently filed a reply.

In analyzing the patent owner’s motion, the board explained that the Federal Circuit in Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2019) describes the three steps a patent owner must take when seeking a certificate of correction of a patent undergoing an IPR—namely: (1) seek authorization from the board to file a motion for leave; (2) if the board grants authorization, the patent owner must ask the board to cede its exclusive jurisdiction so that the patent owner can request a certificate of correction from the Director; and (3) if the board cedes its jurisdiction, the patent owner can then petition the Director for a certificate of correction.

In resolving the patent owner’s motion, the board explained that it did not have the authority to decide whether the patent owner met the requirements of § 255. Instead, according to the board, it could determine only whether the patent owner had provided enough basis to support its position that the mistake may be correctable by the Patent Office.

The board explained that § 255 states that the director may correct “a mistake of a clerical or typographical nature, or of minor character,” which “appears in a patent and a showing has been made that such mistake occurred in good faith.” The patent owner contended that the claims for which it sought correction contained such a mistake because they contained words such as “absorption bands,” which made no sense in the context of the patent, instead of the correct terminology, “diffraction peaks.” Although the patent owner acknowledged that the claims for which it sought correction were held indefinite—by a district court in a related litigation—they were correctable through a certificate of correction. The patent owner argued that Federal Circuit precedent made clear that the Patent Office has broader authority than a district court to correct errors in a patent. In granting the motion for leave, the board ordered the patent owner to submit, along with its request for a certificate of correction to the Patent Office, the full briefing before the board as well as the board’s decision.

Practice Tip: Patent owners facing a district court holding of indefiniteness should recognize that, under certain circumstances, they may seek a certificate of correction from the Patent Office, even if the patent is under review before the board. Critically, a patent owner facing such a situation must follow the proper procedural channels before the board to maximize its chances of success.

Mylan Pharms. Inc. et al. v. Merch Sharp & Dohme Corp., IPR2020-00040, Paper 76 (PTAB Dec. 23, 2020)

 

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.