En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a petition for rehearing en banc filed in a patent case presenting questions related to patent eligibility, along with two denials of petitions in a patent case and a pro se case, respectively. Here are the details.


Since our last update, a petition for rehearing en banc was filed in Ficep Corporation v. Peddinghaus Corporation, a patent case. The petitioner presents the following questions:

  1. “Does a claim directed to a patent-eligible (manufacturing) process or system remain eligible if part of the process is automated?”
  2. “Can a claim involving more than merely automating steps be patent eligible, e.g., if automation processes are done differently than by hand or have material advantages beyond speed of processing?”
  3. “Should an ‘abstract idea’ for a claim be defined concerning the claimed invention, i.e., what makes the patent claim patentable?”
  4. “When inventiveness of a claim is evaluated under Step 2 of Alice, should the Court examine evidence of inventiveness as defined under the Patent Act?”
    1. “Is it improper to ignore at summary judgment facts and evidence of inventiveness?”
    2. “Is Ficep entitled to a jury trial on inventiveness, based on evidence of inventiveness including objective indicia?”


Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has denied two petitions for rehearing en banc in the following cases: