Hunting Titan, Inc. v, DynaEnergetics Europe GmbH, No. 20-2163 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
DynaEnergetics’s patent 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. Titan petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–15, asserting unpatentability based on anticipation and obviousness. The Board found all of the original claims unpatentable. DynaEnergetics moved to amend the patent to add proposed substitute claims 16–22. Titan opposed the motion, advancing only obviousness grounds. Although Titan did not assert that prior art (Schacherer) anticipated the proposed substitute claims, the Board determined that the original and proposed substitute claims alike were unpatentable as anticipated by Schacherer.
The Federal Circuit Precedential Opinion Panel concluded that Titan had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that proposed substitute claims 16–22 are unpatentable and granted the motion to amend the patent to add the proposed substitute claims. The Federal Circuit subsequently affirmed. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Schacherer anticipates all of the patent’s original claims. The court rejected Titan’s challenge to the Panel’s decision to vacate the Board’s denial of the motion to amend and argument that the Board has a duty to determine the patentability of the proposed substitute claims based on the entirety of the record.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.