Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received two new petitions raising questions related to patent eligibility and the Appointments Clause. The court also invited a response to a petition that raised questions related to the notice required to collect damages for infringement. Finally, the court denied a petition raising questions related to the assignment of patents. Here are the details.
En Banc Petitions
In Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, Interactive Wearables asked the en banc court to review the following questions:
- “Whether courts can analyze the specification to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea before considering the language of the claim;”
- “Whether courts can disregard the claim limitations based on a quasi-enablement examination of the specification;”
- “Whether, on a motion to dismiss, courts can disregard a plausibly and specifically pled inventive concept based on a factual determination that such inventive concept was well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the invention.”
In Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Corephontics asked the en banc court to review the following question:
- Whether “[t]he Board’s decision in the IPR here . . . violates the Appointments Clause and requires withdrawing the Court’s opinion and remanding to the PTO.”
Invitation to Respond
The Federal Circuit invited a response to the petition in Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, which raised questions concerning the notice required to collect damages for infringement.
The Federal Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc in Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., which raised a question relating to the assignments of patents.