United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
March 25, 2013
ERRATA
______________________
Appeal No. 2011-1547
IN RE JEFFREY HUBBELL, JASON SCHENSE,
ANDREAS ZISCH, AND HEIKE HALL
Decided: March 7, 2013
Precedential Opinion
______________________
Please insert the following in the dissenting opinion
footnote at page 4, line 18, after “(4th ed. 1979)”:
1 The panel majority’s footnote 4 criti-
cizes this citation to an earlier version of the
MPEP that defined “inventive entity”; how-
ever, this has always been the definition of
“inventive entity,” extensively embodied in
judicial opinions, e.g., Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc.
v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.,
606 F.3d
1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and as used in
the current MPEP §804 (8th ed. 2012). I also
remark on the panel majority’s ruling that
“inventive entity” in double patenting law
depends on the relative contribution of the
joint inventors. Maj. Op. at 13. That theory
is devoid of foundation.
Please re-number footnote 1 on page 7, line 28, as footnote
2.
