Novo Industries, L.P., Plaintiff-Cross v. Micro Molds Corporation, and Oscar Helver

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a district court may not correct an error unless “the correction is not subject to reasonable debate”
• holding that a district court may correct an error in a patent “only if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification and (2
• noting that district courts have the authority to correct patents by construction despite the fact that Congress gave the PTO the power to correct patents
• explaining that the correction must not be “subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification”
• noting that Section 255 “deal[s] only with the authority of the PTO to make prospectively effective corrections, and the PTO was given no authority to correct the claims retroactively”
• instructing courts may only correct minor errors that 12 are (1) obvious and (2) not contradicted by prosecution history

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).