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 Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.