Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a response to a petition in a case raising questions related to standing; a new invitation for response to a petition in a case raising questions related to Jurisdiction over an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and the denial of a petition raising questions related to inequitable conduct and obviousness. Here are the details.
A response to a petition was filed in one case.
In Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Jodi Schwendimann filed her response to the petition, which presented questions related to standing. In her response, Schwendimann argues that “there was never any plausible dispute . . . whether [she] had Article III Standing” and “[w]hen Schwendimann filed suit, she had standing based on her credible allegation that she was the owner of infringed patents.” Further, she argues that she “the dispute over whether [she] is a ‘patentee’ under 35 U.S.C. § 281 is exactly the type of dispute that a district court is empowered to address” and thus there is “no reason for further en banc review.”
New Invitations for Responses
The Federal Circuit invited a response to a petition in one case:
- Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (Jurisdiction from PTAB appeal)
The Federal Circuit denied a petition in the following case:
- GS CleanTech Corp. v. Adkins Energy LLC (inequitable conduct and obviousness)