the chance that competitors will be harmed by any delay is minimal. In this case, the continuity data wras included in the ADS, a document contained in the prosecution history. Further, DuPont could have corrected its published application under 37 C.F.R. § 1.221 and MPEP § 1130. While failure to make such a correction may have potential consequences, we see no reason why failure to correct a published application should prevent the patentee from later correcting his issued patent under 35 U.S.C. § 254. Finally, MacDermid argues that even if the certificate of correction is valid, it has no effect in this case because it was issued “after the cause of action arose.” This argument is based on a misreading of Southwest Software, Inc. v. Harlequin Inc., 226 F.3d 1280, 1295 (Fed.Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). MacDermid argues that the certificate of
holding that a forum selection clause encompassing any case or controversy arising under or in connection with this agreement included all causes of action arising directly or indirectly from the business relationship evidenced by the contract holding that state law causes of action arising from improper processing of a claim for benefits are preempted holding that a certificate of correction is not effective for causes of action arising before its issuance holding that because exclusion was not provided to certificate holder terms of the certificate controlled holding issuance of administrative complaint to initiate proceedings not final agency action