En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Highlights include three new petitions in patent cases addressing claim construction, obviousness, and exceptional case status. Here are the details.

New Petitions

Since our last update, new petitions were filed in three cases.

In Tehrani v. Hamilton Technologies LLC, Tehrani asked the en banc court to review the following:

  • Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedents of this court: Para–Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Imps. Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995), Santarus, Inc. v. ParPharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Consol. Edison Co. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938), In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959), In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1984), In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).”

In Ethicon LLC v. International Trade Commission, Ethicon asked the en banc court to review the following:

  1. Whether “[t]he panel misapprehended the intrinsic evidence to find that the specification ‘make[s] clear’ that a redundant construction is correct.”
  2. Whether “the panel’s decision is contrary to at least the following decisions or precedents of this Court: Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237 (Fed. Cir. 2016), VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 53 F.4th 646 (Fed. Cir. 2022), and Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005).”

In Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc., Traxcell Technologies asked the en banc court to review the following questions:

  1. “Is a timely objected to Magistrate Judge’s Report & Recommendation, not yet adopted or approved by a District Court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §636(b), a final ruling for purposes of Title 35 U.S.C. §285? Does the reliance on properly filed objections to a Magistrate’s Report & Recommendation for maintaining an infringement theory, while also advancing an alternate infringement theory taking into account the Magistrate’s Order, illustrate a disregard of the Magistrate Judge’s Order for purposes of finding a case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. §285?”
  2. “Is an objected to Magistrate Ruling, whether by Order or by Report & Recommendation, a final ruling such that a party should know its position is unreasonable before adopted or approved by a District Court?”