Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 24, 2022, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Prost, Reyna, and Hughes issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Hughes, in Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, Case Nos. 2020-2163 and 2020-2191. Petitioner Hunting Titan appealed from the Precedential Opinion Panel's vacatur of an inter parts review (IPR) Board's decision denying Patent Owner DynaEnergetics's contingent motion to amend, and DynaEnergetics cross-appealed from the Board's final written decision finding the original claims unpatentable. Slip Op. at 3. Because substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that the original claims were unpatentable, and Hunting Titan forfeited the argument that the Precedential Opinion Panel misapplied a legal doctrine by failing to raise it on appeal, the panel affirmed both decisions. Id. at 19.
Hunting Titan petitioned for IPR of certain claims of a DynaEnergetics patent raising multiple grounds of unpatentability based on theories of anticipation and obviousness. Id. at 4. DynaEnergetics opposed the petition and filed a contingent motion to amend its patent to add new claims in the event that the Board were to find the originally challenged claims unpatentable. Id. In opposition to the motion to amend, Hunting Titan argued that each of several references, including a patent to Schacherer, disclosed every limitation of the proposed substitute claims, but presented unpatentability arguments based on obviousness without alleging that the proposed substitute claims were anticipated by the prior art of record. Id. at 8-9. The Board determined that the originally challenged claims were anticipated by Schacherer. Id. at 5. Relying solely on a theory of anticipation by Schacherer, the Board also denied DynaEnergetics' motion to amend, without rendering any findings or conclusions as to Hunting Titan's numerous obviousness challenges. Id. at 9. On DynaEnergetics's motion for rehearing, the Precedential Opinion Panel reviewed and vacated the Board's denial of the motion to amend. Id. at 9-13.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.