officer or employee of the united states entitled to receive it. that s pretty plain language. you don t have to be a lawyer to understand that the facts as we know it your point s well taken. these are the public forward facing facts we know. there s a lot of stuff jack smith knows that we don t have knowledge about. but you don t have to be a lawyer to understand what we know falls squarely within this particular violation of a statute. and the people who are listening to this conversation on the tape, david, they don t have to clearance to be able to look at this document. how is this not going to materially be a slam dunk prosecution. and again, you don t have to be a lawyer to be able to address the obviousness of this. revealing the existence of a classified document to someone who s not cleared for that information in and of itself is a violation, whether you get into what s within the document. so there are many, many, many different levels of possible criminal action here.
In early February 2023, the Patent Office's Director designated as precedential the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision in Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., IPR2022-00624.
Affirming an obviousness decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained expectation of success need only be reasonable and not absolute. Transtex sued WABCO alleging their trailer skirts infringed several Transtex patents.
Addressing the standard for obviousness of design patents, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a per curiam opinion, upheld the Patent Trial & Appeal Board's finding that a challenged design patent.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) obviousness decision after finding that the patent owner failed to explain.