Medrad v. Tyco (W.D. Pa 2005).
Medrad sued Tyco for infringement of its patented injection system for use with an MRI. The patent, RE 37,602, underwent two reissue procedures before being asserted by Medrad.
Tyco asserts, however, that the reissue patent is invalid because the reissue process was not initiated to correct one of the four statutorily identified errors:
- Defect in the specification;
- Defect in the drawing;
- Error in claiming too much; or
- Error in claiming too little.
Rather, in this case, the patentee filed the second reissue to correct a mistake made during the prosecution of the original reissue. (The patentee failed to file a supplemental reissue declaration in compliance with PTO Rule 1.175).
The district court agreed with the defendant that Section 251 (Reissue) can only be used to correct an error in the specification, drawings or claims and cannot be used to correct a procedural error that is not reflected in the patent grant itself.
“While we recognize that this holding produces a harsh result — ultimately, plaintiff’s patent is invalidated because it failed to file a supplemental declaration with the PTO — we cannot reconcile plaintiff’s legal argument with the language of section 251, and the controlling case law interpreting it.
Thus, the court found Medrad’s reissue patent invalid because the reissue was filed for a purpose other than that enumerated in the statute.
Comment: This case should serve as a reminder to patent practitioners that the PTO can occasionally be convinced to give you more than what the law allows. If that happens, it is the patentee who pays the ultimate price.