Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Eur. GmbH

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Eur. GmbH

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

March 24, 2022, Decided

2020-2163, 2020-2191

Opinion

Hughes, Circuit Judge.

Hunting Titan, Inc. petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 9,581,422, asserting 16 grounds of unpatentability based on theories of anticipation and obviousness, including allegations that the claims were anticipated by Schacherer, U.S. Patent No. 9,689,223. The Board instituted trial on all grounds and ultimately agreed [*2]  with Hunting Titan, finding all of the original claims unpatentable.

After the petition was instituted, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, the patent owner, moved to amend the '422 patent to add proposed substitute claims 16-22. Hunting Titan opposed the motion to amend, advancing only obviousness grounds. Although Hunting Titan did not assert that Schacherer anticipated the proposed substitute claims, the Board determined that the original and proposed substitute claims alike were unpatentable as anticipated by Schacherer. DynaEnergetics requested rehearing and Precedential Opinion Panel review of the Board's denial of the motion to amend. The Panel granted DynaEnergetics's request for rehearing, vacated the Board's decision denying DynaEnergetics's motion to amend, and then—after concluding that Hunting Titan had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 16-22 are unpatentable—granted the motion to amend the '422 patent to add the proposed substitute claims.

Hunting Titan appeals the Precedential Opinion Panel's vacatur of the Board's decision denying the motion to amend, and DynaEnergetics cross-appeals the Board's decision finding the original claims of the '422 patent anticipated by [*3]  Schacherer. We affirm on both grounds.

DynaEnergetics owns the '422 patent, which is directed to a perforating gun used in an oil wellbore to penetrate the well lining and surrounding rock formation in order to provide a flow path for oil into the wellbore from the surrounding rock formation. '422 patent, 1:15-44. The perforating gun's key feature is a "wireless" and "selective" detonator assembly for detonating an explosive projectile charge within the perforating gun "without the need to attach wires to the detonator." Id. 2:24-34. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced below.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 7755 *; __ F.4th __

HUNTING TITAN, INC., Appellant v. DYNAENERGETICS EUROPE GMBH, Cross-Appellant ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor

Prior History:  [*1] Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2018-00600.

Disposition: AFFIRMED.

CORE TERMS

unpatentability, assembly, detonator, patent, anticipation, motion to amend, electrical, persuasive, gun, perforating, original claim, limitations, amend, wired, housing, shell, prior art, circumstances, wireless, sua sponte, new claim, grounds, oppose a motion, proceedings, discloses, configured, teach, adversarial system, regulation, supporting evidence

Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Standards of Review, Substantial Evidence, Patent Law, US Patent & Trademark Office Proceedings, Appeals, Anticipation & Novelty, Fact & Law Issues, Jurisdiction & Review, De Novo Review, Nonobviousness, Elements & Tests, Prior Art, Business & Corporate Compliance, Patent Law, Reexamination Proceedings