Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting questions related to patent reissue and the written description requirement; two new invitations for response to petitions presenting questions related to patent reissue, the written description requirement, and appellate jurisdiction; and denials of two petitions presenting questions related to the non-obviousness requirement and anticipation. Here are the details.
Since our last update, a new petition was filed in one case.
In Cioffi v. Google LLC, Cioffi asked the en banc court to review the following questions:
- “What is the proper construction of Section 251’s requirement that, upon certain conditions being met, the Patent Office shall ‘reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent?’”
- “Does Section 251 permit reissue claims that (1) are narrowed—not broadened—and (2) meet Section 112’s written-description requirement?”
New Invitations for Response
The Federal Circuit invited responses to the petitions in the following two cases:
- Cioffi v. Google LLC (patent reissue and written description requirement)
- Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Technology, LLC (appellate jurisdiction)
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has denied the petitions in the following two cases:
- KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (non-obviousness)
- VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton Interactive Inc. (anticipation)