Understanding Patent Reissue Practice

Patent reissue represents a unique mechanism within U.S. patent law that allows patent owners to correct errors in issued patents that render them "wholly or partly inoperative or invalid." [1] Unlike simple corrections, reissue requires surrendering the original patent and prosecuting an entirely new application before the USPTO, making it a high-stakes procedure that demands careful strategic consideration.

The legal foundation rests in 35 U.S.C. 251, which provides patent owners the opportunity to correct defective specifications, drawings, or claims where the patentee claimed more or less than they had the right to claim. This statutory remedy serves as a critical safety valve for correcting substantial patent defects that cannot be addressed through simpler correction mechanisms.

The Two-Year Broadening Window

The most critical timing constraint governs broadening reissue applications. Under 35 U.S.C. § 251(d), any reissue seeking to enlarge claim scope must be filed within two years from the grant date of the original patent. This absolute deadline cannot be extended or waived.

Bright-Line IP emphasizes the early identification of potential broadening opportunities, as this two-year window often proves insufficient for complex patent portfolios. The determination of whether claims are "broadened" requires careful analysis—a claim is considered broadened if it enlarges scope in any respect, even if narrower in others.[2]

---

Comparison of Patent Correction Methods

Key Differences and Applications

Understanding when to pursue reissue versus alternative correction methods is fundamental to effective patent prosecution strategy. The choice between correction mechanisms depends on the nature and scope of the error requiring correction.

Specialized Examination Procedures

Reissue applications are processed by the USPTO's Central Reexamination Unit (CRU), staffed with experienced examiners and legal specialists. This centralized approach ensures consistency in applying complex reissue law.[3] The examination follows standard patent prosecution procedures but with additional reissue-specific requirements. All claims face complete re-examination without a presumption of validity, and examiners may apply any relevant prior art regardless of original prosecution history.[4]

---

Common Pitfalls and Risk Management

Patent Surrender Consequences (MPEP 1460)

The mere filing of a reissue application acknowledges that the original patent contains errors that render it inoperative or invalid. Under 37 CFR 1.178(a), the reissue application is an offer to surrender that patent that takes effect “upon reissue of the patent". While the reissue application is pending, the original patent remains in full legal effect and theoretically retains its enforceability. However, this acknowledgment of patent deficiency creates doubt about patent enforceability that can undermine licensing negotiations and litigation strategy. [5]

Recapture Doctrine (MPEP 1412)

The recapture doctrine prevents re-claiming subject matter surrendered during original prosecution, creating one of the most complex and frequently encountered obstacles in reissue applications. The Federal Circuit's decision in MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. establishes that the "original application" for recapture analysis includes the patent family's entire prosecution history, not merely the application that issued as the patent being reissued. This expansive definition means that surrender occurring during prosecution of parent, continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part applications can preclude broadening reissue claims, even when such surrender was unrelated to the specific patent being reissued.

The recapture doctrine provides important exceptions for "overlooked aspects" of the original disclosure. Claims directed to "separate inventions/embodiments/species that were disclosed but never covered by the claims in the original application prosecution" constitute overlooked aspects that are not subject to recapture because they are "unrelated to subject matter that was surrendered during the prosecution of the original application". This exception proves particularly valuable for technology patents where comprehensive claiming during original prosecution may have been impractical or overlooked.

Amendment Formatting Requirements (MPEP 1453)

Reissue applications require specific amendment formats distinct from standard patent prosecution practice, creating procedural requirements that can result in rejections and delays when not properly followed. These formatting requirements reflect the unique nature of reissue proceedings, where all changes must be made relative to the issued patent rather than pending application claims.

Litigation Coordination Challenges (37 CFR 1.178(b))

Reissue applications involved in ongoing litigation face additional procedural complexities that can extend prosecution timelines and create strategic complications. The USPTO's examination procedures require the determination of whether patents subject to reissue are involved in litigation or Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings. Litigation-related reissues receive priority treatment but may face prosecution suspension depending on the litigation status, creating coordination challenges between patent prosecution and litigation strategies.

Intervening Rights (35 USC 252) 

The intervening rights doctrine protects third parties who, in reliance on the scope of an original patent, have begun using, selling, or manufacturing a patented invention before the grant of a reissue or reexamined patent. This legal mechanism creates a substantial risk for patent owners and can limit the enforceability of newly broadened or amended claims against existing implementations, even while preserving future enforcement potential.

The risk for patent owners is particularly acute in broadening reissue scenarios. When claims are expanded in scope, any new enforcement attempt against third-party activities that occurred before the reissue grant may be limited or even barred by intervening rights. For example, a semiconductor company that broadened its process patents through reissue may not be able to assert the new claims against competitors who began manufacturing using the originally permitted process prior to the reissue.

---

Best Practices for Reissue Success

The CAFC’s holding in In re Yasuhito Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011) established a key aspect of U.S. patent reissue law: the omission of narrower dependent claims in an original patent application can, by itself, constitute a sufficient “error” to support a reissue application. This can occur even if the patent owner retains all original claims unchanged. Tanaka provides exceptional flexibility to what is considered a correctable error under 35 U.S.C. 251. [6]

A note on continuation and divisional reissue practice

It’s possible to file a continuation or divisional application based on a reissue application. Patent owners can file continuation applications to preserve the capability to broaden the application while extending prosecution time. This allows additional time to refine claims based on market developments or competitor activities. Further, continuations provide alternative paths to success if the primary reissue faces rejections.

---

Technology Sector Implications

AI and Machine Learning Patents 

Strategic Reissue Approaches for AI Application Expansion: Successful broadening reissue applications in the AI sector must demonstrate more than mere application of known machine learning techniques to new domains. The USPTO's 2024 AI patent eligibility guidance emphasizes that AI inventions require "technological solutions to technological problems" rather than abstract implementations of known algorithms. This standard creates opportunities for reissue applications that can articulate specific technological improvements achieved through AI integration (e.g. reducing noise in audio processing systems).

For AI patents seeking broadening through reissue, practitioners must carefully structure claims to emphasize concrete technological improvements rather than abstract algorithmic concepts. The Federal Circuit's analysis in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. establishes that successful AI applications must demonstrate specific technological improvements to the machine learning process itself rather than merely applying generic machine learning techniques to new domains.[7]. This requirement also extends to broadening reissues.

Robotics and Automation 

The rapid evolution of robotics hardware platforms creates particular challenges for maintaining adequate patent disclosure as technology advances. Recent guidance suggests that robotics patents claims should be directed to the entire system (in particular, how various sub-systems work together to address problems in novel ways) rather than abstract software or generic hardware descriptions. [8]. This integrated approach provides stronger protection against design-around attempts and better captures the true innovation in complex robotics systems.

Advanced robotics systems increasingly rely on sophisticated firmware, embedded control systems, and distributed processing architectures that generate vast amounts of operational data. For example, AI-driven control systems may enable novel operational strategies or optimization approaches that were not initially contemplated during patent prosecution. Reissue applications provide mechanisms for broadening claims to cover these AI-powered control variations while maintaining protection for the underlying robotic innovations. Further, reissue applications provide opportunities to enhance these disclosures with specific implementation details that satisfy evolving enablement requirements.

Semiconductor Manufacturing

Semiconductor manufacturing involves complex sequences of interdependent process steps where the outcome of each stage affects subsequent processing requirements. This interdependence presents unique enablement challenges when patents must describe manufacturing processes with sufficient precision to protect commercially relevant IP. For example, the specification for a new chip must describe not merely the lithographic exposure process, but the complex interactions between mask design, optical corrections, substrate preparation, and post-exposure processing that collectively determine manufacturing success.

Reissue applications can aim to protect advancements in how these multi-stage processes interact and how process control systems integrate information from different manufacturing stages to optimize overall device performance.

---

Conclusion

Effective reissue practice requires comprehensive prior art analysis, an understanding of market pressures, and a coordinated litigation strategy. Early consultation proves critical, as reissue opportunities often emerge through careful analysis of competitor activities, market developments, or enforcement scenarios that reveal claim scope limitations. We recommend systematic portfolio reviews within 18 months of patent issuance as an effective strategy to identify potential reissue candidates before the two-year broadening window closes. Well-executed reissue strategies yield significant returns when claim scope improvements align with key commercial implementations or create meaningful competitive advantages.

Reissue applications create both opportunities and vulnerabilities in litigation contexts. Patent owners must remember that pending reissue applications can establish substantial questions of patent enforceability, potentially complicating associated licensing deals and legal proceedings. This risk must be weighed against the fact that reissue applications also provide powerful tools for strengthening patent positions before or during litigation. Strategic timing of reissue applications relative to litigation schedules can maximize benefits while minimizing risks.

Sources:

1. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1400 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024, Nov. 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-1400.pdf.

2. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1401 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024, Nov. 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1401.html.

3. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1456 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024, Nov. 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1456.html.

4. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1440 (9th ed., Rev. 01.2024, Nov. 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1440.html.

5. Neal Technologies, Inc. v. Innovative Performance Research, LLC, No. CV-14-02060-PHX-SRB, 2015 WL 3913669 (D. Ariz. June 25, 2015).

6. In re Yasuhito Tanaka, 640 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

7. Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 23-2437 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025).

8. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ai-sme-update-2024.pdf