Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistColumns & DepartmentsIntellectual PropertyPatent Litigation

IP News

By Jeff Ginsberg and Zhiqiang Liu
May 01, 2022

Federal Circuit Affirms Precedential Opinion Panel Decision Limiting the Circumstances In Which the Board Should Raise Sua Sponte Patentability Issues Against Proposed Substitute Claims

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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.

The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.