En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include a new petition presenting a question related to the standard of review of obviousness determinations and a response brief addressing what constitutes a final judgment for purposes of appellate jurisdiction. Here are the details.

New Petition

Since our last update, a petition was filed in Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc. In this case, Roku asked the en banc court to review the following question:

  • “Whether this Court may terminate its review of a lower tribunal’s obviousness analysis upon determining only that certain factual findings undergirding the analysis are supported by substantial evidence (as the majority did here), or whether the Court must also consider de novo whether those factual findings support the tribunal’s ultimate legal conclusion on obviousness (as KSR, Graham, and Panduit require).”

New Response

Sidekick Technology filed its response to Vroom’s petition for rehearing en banc in Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Technology, LLC. In its petition, Vroom argued the panel erred in concluding that “at least Vroom’s request for injunctive relief remains pending” because it “misapplied both cases it cited as support and failed to consider applicable Third Circuit law.” Specifically, Vroom argued, “the Panel did not recognize that the district court’s ruling mooted Appellees’ prayers for relief, rendering inapposite the Supreme Court and Second Circuit cases on which [it] relied.” Moreover, said Vroom, the panel “ignored Third Circuit law that grants district courts full discretion on which issues to decide . . . in declaratory-judgment actions.”

In response, Sidekick Technology now argues the “Panel correctly held that this appeal was premature based on the fact Vroom’s request for injunctive relief remained (indeed, still remains) pending in the district court.” It contends the “Panel’s decision is also in line with the decisions the Combined Petition asserts the Panel’s decisions would upend.” Finally, Sidekick asserts, “Third Circuit law has no bearing on the issues addressed in the Panel’s decision.”