Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a petition filed in a pro se case; a new response to a petition raising questions related to injunctions; and the denial of four petitions raising questions related to standing, obviousness, and assignor estoppel. Here are the details.
A new petition was filed in a pro se case, In re Arunachalam.
In Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Ariosa filed its response to Verinata’s petition for rehearing en banc. Verinata and Illumina filed a petition for en banc review to “vindicate the importance of permanent injunctions as a remedy for patent infringement.”
In its response, Ariosa asserts that en banc review is not warranted. Specifically, it argues that “[t]he panel’s non-precedential decision necessarily creates no conflict with precedent, and there is no question of ‘exceptional importance’ raised by the panel’s decision.” Further, it contends that “Illumina simply disagrees with the district court’s and the panel’s reasoning, and its petition just rehashes arguments that the panel soundly rejected.”
The Federal Circuit denied petitions in the following four cases:
- Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating (standing)
- Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc. (obviousness)
- Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. (assignor estoppel)
- Valeant Pharmaceuticals Intl. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (obviousness)