US Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of US Synthetic Corporation in ITC Case
THE WOODLANDS, Texas, Feb. 17, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- ChampionX Corporation (NASDAQ: CHX) ('ChampionX') noted today that its US Synthetic Corp., a leading provider of polycrystalline diamond cutters for oil and gas drilling, has secured a significant legal victory as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversing a prior International Trade Commission (ITC) determination that had deemed the company's patent claims ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The case, involving U.S. Patent No. 10508502, pertains to a polycrystalline diamond compact (PDC) used in rotary drill bits, which exhibits superior diamond to diamond bonding. The ITC had initially ruled that the patent's claims were directed to an abstract idea, arguing that the disclosed magnetic properties were merely side effects of the manufacturing process rather than physical characteristics of the compound. However, the Federal Circuit disagreed, finding that the claims described a specific composition of matter and not an abstract idea, reinforcing that the magnetic properties provide meaningful insights into the PDC's physical characteristics.
'We are extremely pleased with the Federal Circuit's decision, which reaffirms the validity of our patent and the importance of our innovation,' said Rob Galloway, President at US Synthetic. 'This ruling not only protects our intellectual property but also underscores the significance of our technology in advancing drilling performance and efficiency.'
About US Synthetic
US Synthetic, which is the Drilling Technologies segment of ChampionX, offers innovative, top-quality polycrystalline diamond cutters ('PDC'), bearings, valves, and mining tools to help customers drill the world's most demanding oil exploration and development projects, and for use in other industries. These highly specialized products are developed and produced based on more than 40 years of innovation and intellectual property development in material science applications.
About ChampionX
ChampionX is a global leader in chemistry solutions, artificial lift systems, and highly engineered equipment and technologies that help companies drill for and produce oil and gas safely, efficiently, and sustainably around the world. ChampionX's expertise, innovative products, and digital technologies provide enhanced oil and gas production, transportation, and real-time emissions monitoring throughout the lifecycle of a well. To learn more about ChampionX, visit our website at www.championX.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
US Asks Appeals Court to Let Trump Tariffs Remain for Longer
A federal appeals court is closer to ruling on whether to keep most of President Donald Trump's global tariffs in place longer while the legal battle over them continues. The Justice Department on Monday asked the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to extend its earlier short-term pause on a lower court's May 28 ruling that most of Trump's tariffs are illegal. The government said that the ruling harmed the president's ability to conduct foreign policy.
Business Wire
5 days ago
- Business Wire
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Files Securities Class Action Against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC (OTC: RBGLY)
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ('Scott+Scott'), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC ('Reckitt' or the 'Company') (OTC: RBGLY), and certain of its former and current officers and/or directors (collectively, 'Defendants'). The Class Action asserts claims under §§10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §§78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R. §240.10b‑5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Reckitt American Depositary Shares ('ADSs') between January 13, 2021, and July 28, 2024, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), and were damaged thereby (the 'Class'). The Class Action filed by Scott+Scott is captioned: Elevator Constructors Union Local No. 1 Annuity & 401(K) Fund v. Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-4708. Reckitt is a United Kingdom-based, global consumer goods company. To date, over 500 state and federal products liability lawsuits have been filed against Reckitt and its competitor, Abbott Laboratories ('Abbott'), claiming that they failed to adequately warn that premature infants consuming cow milk-based formulas, such as Reckitt's Enfamil and Abbott's Similac, have an increased risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis ('NEC'), a life-threatening intestinal disease that affects premature or low birth weight infants. The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants made misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's business, financial condition, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to warn investors and consumers: (1) that preterm infants were at an increased risk of developing NEC by consuming Reckitt's cow's milk-based formula, Enfamil; (2) of the attendant impact on Reckitt's sales of Enfamil and Reckitt's exposure to legal claims; and (3) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. The market began to learn the truth on March 15, 2024, when, in the case captioned Watson vs. Mead Johnson Co., Case No. 21-L-1032 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Oct. 28, 2021), a jury in St. Clair County, Illinois, returned a $60 million verdict in the first NEC lawsuit to be tried to a verdict. The jury found that Mead Johnson was negligent and failed to warn the decedent's mother of the increased risk her preterm infant could develop NEC by consuming cow's milk-based formula. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.87, or nearly 14%, from a closing price of $13.31 per share on March 14, 2024, to a closing price of $11.44 per share on March 15, 2024. Then, on July 29, 2024, the market continued to learn the truth when, in the case captioned Gill v. Abbot Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 2322-CC1251 (Mo. Circ. Ct. Jun. 23, 2023), a jury in St. Louis, Missouri, concluded that Abbott's specialized formula for premature babies led to a baby developing NEC and awarded the plaintiff $495 million. On this news, the price of the Company's ADSs fell $1.02, or nearly 9%, from a closing price of $11.66 per share on July 28, 2024, to a closing price of $10.64 per share on July 29, 2024. LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON AUGUST 4, 2025 If you purchased Reckitt ADSs during the Class Period and were damaged thereby, you are a member of the 'Class' and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York no later than August 4, 2025. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members of the Class. You do not need to seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent Class member. If you wish to apply to be lead plaintiff, please contact attorney Nicholas Bruno at (888) 398-9312 or at nbruno@ What Can You Do? You may contact an attorney to discuss your rights regarding the appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the Class Action. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott is an international law firm known for its expertise in representing corporate clients, institutional investors, businesses, and individuals harmed by anticompetitive conduct or other forms of wrongdoing, including securities law and shareholder violations. With more than 100 attorneys in eight offices in the United States, as well as three offices in Europe, our advocacy has resulted in significant monetary settlements on behalf of our clients, along with other forms of relief. Our highly experienced attorneys have been recognized for being among the top financial lawyers in 2024 by Lawdragon, WWL: Commercial Litigation 2024, and Legal 500 in Antitrust Civil Litigation, and have received top Chambers 2024 rankings. In addition, we have been repeatedly recognized by the American Antitrust Institute for the successful litigation of high-stakes anticompetitive claims in the United States. To learn more about Scott+Scott, our attorneys, or complex case resolution, please visit This may be considered Attorney Advertising.
New York Times
7 days ago
- New York Times
Trump's Tariffs Are a Step Toward Unbridled Presidential Power
Are President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs on, or are they off? And, more important, will legal challenges to these levies put the brakes on the seizure by presidents of both parties of ever-increasing unilateral power? Two federal courts recently ruled that Mr. Trump lacks authority to impose them, but a specialized federal court with authority over tariff cases, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, paused the enforcement of those decisions, ordering lawyers to submit legal briefs before a hearing on Monday. One or both cases is likely to land at the Supreme Court in short order. Understandably, most of the commentary has focused on the practical ramifications for the president's trade negotiations and the American economy. But the cases may be even more important for the future of a fundamental component of the Constitution's architecture: the separation of powers, intended by the founders to prevent any of the government's three branches from becoming all powerful. The tariff litigation is shaping up as the biggest separation-of-powers controversy since the 'steel seizure' case in 1952. There, President Harry Truman assumed control over the nation's steel mills to ensure the continued supply of armaments needed for the Korean War. The Supreme Court rebuffed Truman, establishing the principle that, even in an emergency, the president cannot take upon himself powers that are granted neither by the Constitution nor by congressional statute. The case has been cited in court decisions repeatedly since then, and is central to most law school courses on constitutional law. It is clear that the president has no inherent constitutional authority to set or change tariffs or any other taxes. That authority is expressly given to Congress in the first clause of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. And it is also clear that Congress has not expressly delegated any power to the president to impose tariffs on his own say-so. The question is whether vague language in a 50-year-old statute, the International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977, gives the president the tariff-setting power. That act delegates various powers to the president 'to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat' to U.S. national security, foreign policy or economy. The statute makes no mention of tariffs or other taxes, and before Mr. Trump, no president ever interpreted it to include such a power. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
