En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. The court received a response to a petition raising questions related to transfer of venue in a patent case, an amicus brief in the same case, and eight amicus briefs in another case with a petition raising questions related to inducement of patent infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Here are the details.

New Response

In In re Apple, Inc., Apple filed its response to Uniloc 2017’s petition for en banc review. In the petition, Uniloc argued that the panel majority “exceeded its authority to review transfer denials with deference” in the context of mandamus petitions for venue transfer due to convenience. In response, Apple now argues that “Uniloc seeks a remedy [the] Court cannot provide,” since the panel adhered to the en banc precedent of the regional circuit.

New Amicus Briefs

The court received an amicus brief in In re Apple, Inc. from US Inventor, Inc. in support of en banc rehearing. In the brief, US Inventor notes that as a result of the court’s jurisprudence around venue transfers, “mandamus petition practice has exploded,” “eroding the deference afforded to district courts.”

The court also received eight new amicus briefs in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceutical USA, Inc., a case involving inducement of patent infringement in the context of Hatch-Waxman. Notably, one of the amicus briefs was filed by former Congressman Henry A. Waxman, a co-sponsor of the Hatch-Waxman Act. Here is a list with links to the amicus briefs: