Article

Claim Construction: Indefinite or Clerical Error?

IP Litigator
January 1, 2026Estimated Read Time: 2 mins

A recent Federal Circuit decision analyzed the “very demanding standard” of judicial correction of erroneous wording of a patent claim. Canatex Completion Solutions, Inc. v. Wellmatics, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-1466 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2025)

Background

Canatex Completion Solutions owns U.S. Patent No. 10,794,122. This patent covers a releasable connection device for a downhole tool string used during downhole operations in oil and gas wells. The device has two parts locked together. In circumstances where the further downhole (first) part of the device has gotten stuck, the operator can disconnect the two parts of the device, leaving the further downhole (first) part in the well while pulling the upper (second) part to the surface.

Canatex accused Wellmatics, LLC, GR Energy Services, LLC, GR Energy Services Management, LP, GR Energy Services Operating GP, LLC, and GR Wireline, L.P. (collectively, “Defendants”) of infringing the ’122 patent in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In response, Defendants challenged the ’122 patent’s validity. The claimed phrase at issue was “the connection profile of the second part.” Defendants argued the claims that included this phrase were indefinite for lack of an antecedent basis, while Canatex argued the phrase contains an evident error and that the intended meaning was “the connection profile of the first part.”

The district court agreed with Defendants that the claims were indefinite, ruling that “the error” identified by Canatex “is not evident from the face of the patent and the correction to the claim is not as simple as [Canatex] makes it seem.” In fact, the court ruled this “error” “was an intentional drafting choice and not an error at all.” The court further concluded that Canatex’s failure to seek correction from the USPTO pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 255, which expressly permits the USPTO to correct certain clerical, typographical, and minor errors, suggested that the error is neither minor nor evident on the face of the patent.

Click here to read the full article.