On appeal Honeywell argued that, while the mistake was not a clerical or typographical error, a certificate of correction is a permissible means for changing the priority claim and that the change was “minor” because it did not alter the substance of the claims or the specification. Id. at 4. Honeywell also argued that it satisfied the “good faith” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 255 because it sought leave promptly after discovering the error, and Arkema did not contest this assertion. Id. Rather, Arkema countered that allowing Honeywell to correct the priority claim would be “extremely prejudicial” since the window to file another PGR with different prior art had closed. Id.
The Federal Circuit first rejected Arkema’s argument that the Board’s decision was unreviewable under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) as agency action “committed to agency discretion by law.” Id. at 5. On the merits, the Court determined that the Board “abused its discretion by assuming the authority that 35 U.S.C. § 255 expressly delegates to the Director: to determine when a certificate of correction is appropriate.” Id. at 6. The Court noted that a patent owner wishing to file a petition for certificate of correction must: (1) seek authorization from the Board to file a motion; (2) file a motion with the Board, if authorized, asking the Board to cede exclusive jurisdiction over the matter; and (3) if the motion is granted, petition the Director under 35 U.S.C. § 255. Id. (citations omitted). Once those steps are complete, it is the Director, not the Board, who evaluates the petition for certificate of correction. Id. at 7. The Court instructed the Board, on remand, to authorize Honeywell to file the motion and then review it in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.323 and MPEP § 1485. Id. at 10-11.
This case provides a reminder to both parties to consider whether the priority chain is correct. Patent Owners, in particular, must remember to be prompt in requesting leave to file a motion for leave to petition for certificate of correction. The longer Patent Owner waits, the higher the likelihood that the motion will be denied. Petitioners too must by cognizant that a Patent Owner may use a certificate of correction to correct a priority claim to antedate prior art.
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.