Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. The court received a two new petitions. One raises a question related to the standard for establishing venue, and the other raises three questions related to claim construction at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court also invited a response to a petition raising a question related to anticipation. Finally, the court also denied a petition in a case raising a question related to patent eligibility. Here are the details.
En Banc Petition
In In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., Monolithic Power Systems asked the en banc court to review the following question:
- “Whether the legal inquiry for venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) turns on whether the employer’s actions have created a ‘regular and established place of business’ in the district, not on its employees’ actions from their private homes.”
In Sig Sauer Inc. v. NST Global, LLC., NST Global asked the en banc court to review the following questions:
- “Whether, in an inter partes review, the Petition controls or can the Board decide a claim construction not placed at issue by the Parties.”
- “Whether, in an inter partes review, the Board violates the APA when it places at issue a claim construction during Oral Hearing, which it ultimately decides on.”
- “Whether the standards provided for determining when a preamble is limiting uniformly align with the established claim construction process.”
New Invitation for Response
The Federal Circuit invited a response to the petition in Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., which raised a question related to anticipation.
The Federal Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc in CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., a case that raised questions related to patent eligibility.