The court of appeals that decides patent cases issued an interesting (for patent nerds, at least) decision addressing (to a degree) the validity of a patent Disney holds on how it made the electric candles flicker in the Haunted Mansion. Without going into boring details, the court held that the first patent seemed to "anticipate" the latter patent (which provided, so I understand it) the basis for an infringement claim by Disney's licensee against a third party who also wanted to sell flickering candles. Here is a link to the decision. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1671.Opinion.2-25-2016.1.PDF The decision first addresses a "standing" issue - essentially, whether Disney, as the patentee had to be a party to the lawsuit. The second part of the decision holds that the lower court should not have granted an injunction in favor of Disney's licensee without first resolving whether the patent in question had been "anticipated" by a prior patent. The decision itself does a poor job of explaining what "anticipation" means (perhaps Dr. Frank-N-Furter would have done better.) The US PTO explains what it means at this site: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2131.html For present purposes, you only need to know that an invention cannot be patented (or the issued patent will be invalid) if that invention is anticipated (or is “not novel”) by a previous patent. Still, the standard for "anticipation" is quite high. To be honest, I'm not seeing how the first patent anticipated the subsequent one. The court did not decide that question definitively, however. It merely sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to have the lower court resolve the anticipation question before granting an injunction.