<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">- -
<b><i>his is the SAME
"invention <u>disclosed </u>in the original patent"</i></b> - - </div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>But that is not enough. "the claims must satisfy the statutory original patent requirement." Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac Gmbh, 2014-1648 (Fed. Cir. 11/17/2014). And I suspect an open legal question is whether an incorporation by reference could, as a matter of law, be sufficient to satisfy that requirement.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:48\u202fAM Timothy Snowden via Patentpractice <<a href="mailto:patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com">patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Just to add on, here's how I'm thinking through 35 USC 251:</p>
<p>(a) ... </p>
<ul>
<li>by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a
right to claim in the patent, <i><b>- the applicant had the
right to claim design or utility in the original patent</b></i></li>
<li>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, <b><i> - this is the SAME
"invention <u>disclosed </u>in the original patent"</i></b></li>
<li>for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. <b><i>-
the design patent would last longer than the utility patent
-- but let's assume a terminal disclaimer would probably be
required to the other utility patents</i></b></li>
<li>No new matter shall be introduced into the application for
reissue<b><i> - no new matter is being introduced -- assume that
direct quotes are being used from the utility disclosure
incorporated by reference</i></b></li>
</ul>
<p>(b) 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 for a reissue for
each of such reissued patents.<b><i> - wouldn't design and utility
be "distinct and separate parts of the thing patented"? Just
like in the original priority chain where both utility and
design were continuations of an original application.</i></b></p>
<div>On 9/25/2025 9:18 AM, Timothy Snowden
via Designs wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>I've encountered a fairly uncommon scenario and just want to
run this thought process by all of you to double check myself.
I'm cross-posting to designs and patent practice because it
relates to both.</p>
<p>Assume there's a proper continuation chain of applications (all
issued) including utilities and designs. A design patent is the
only patent issued in the last 2 years, and so the only patent
eligible for broadening reissue. Assume for the sake of
discussion that subject matter recapture and original invention
are not an issue here.</p>
<p><b>QUESTION: If I file 2 applications in this order:</b></p>
<ol>
<li>a proper broadening reissue application of the design patent
(claiming a patentably distinct design that is properly
supported in the original application), and then</li>
<li>a <i>continuation</i> broadening reissue (not a
regular/Bauman type) <b><i>utility</i></b> application</li>
</ol>
<b><u>Would the USPTO reject the <i>continuation </i>reissue as
improperly trying to convert from a design to a utility? (MPEP
1457) </u></b>
<p><b><u>Does anybody have any experience (practical with the
USPTO's response) or thoughts (based on the statutes)?</u></b></p>
<p>Just to be clear: broadening reissue application #1 would be a
design. Application #2 (continuation reissue application) would
be a utility.</p>
<p>Here's where I'm stuck: because it is a continuation <i>reissue
</i>application, does the inability to 'convert' apply? I can
see an argument that it is still a reissue application of the
design patent, so no go. </p>
<p>However, I can also see that: </p>
<ul>
<li>there was an error in the design - applicant claimed less
design than they should have. </li>
<li>There is no new matter because the design patent
incorporated by reference (at least via the priority chain)
the entire specification of the parent utility applications. </li>
<li>Assume there is no extension of time -- the utility patent
20 year from initial filing term would be less than the design
patent 15 year from issue term.</li>
</ul>
<p>Thanks in advance!</p>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
</blockquote>
</div>
-- <br>
Patentpractice mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com" target="_blank">Patentpractice@oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
<a href="http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com</a><br>
</blockquote></div><div><br clear="all"></div><br><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Best regards</div><div>Rick Neifeld, J.D., Ph.D. <br></div><div>Neifeld IP Law PLLC<br></div><div>9112 Shearman Street, Fairfax VA 22032</div><div>Mobile: 7034470727<br></div><div>Email: <a href="mailto:RichardNeifeld@gmail.com" target="_blank">RichardNeifeld@gmail.com</a>; <br></div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div>