In 2018, Hunting Titan, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422 (“the ’422 patent”), which is owned by DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, a.
In 2018, Hunting Titan, Inc. filed a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422 ("the '422 patent"), which is owned by DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, a manufacturer of industrial explosives.
Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions.
With sharp critiques, the Federal Circuit on Thursday upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's precedent-setting panel allowing DynaEnergetics to amend an oil drilling patent, while affirming the board's initial decision that the original claims were invalid.
The precedential ruling in
Hunting Titan, Inc. v.
DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, IPR2018-00600, Paper 67 (PTAB July
6, 2020) allows the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) to raise
an issue regarding substitute claims that was not raised by the
parties. When the PTAB supplements the case presented by the
Petitioner, it should, according to
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas
AG, 955 F. 3d 45 (Fed. Cir. 2020), give notice to the
parties so they can adequately respond, such as by discussing the
issue at oral argument or in supplemental briefing.
In
Nike, the Federal Circuit ruled that [b]ased on consideration of the entire record, the Board must