En Banc Activity

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include a new petition raising a question about the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) and denials of petitions in two cases raising questions related to obviousness. Here are the details.

New Petition

In Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v. Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., Edwards Lifesciences Corporation asked the en banc court to review the following question:

  • “Whether, under 35 U.S.C. 271(e)(1), identifying any regulatory use also immunizes all other uses, whether they relate to the federal regulatory process or not, under the Act’s safe harbor—which excuses infringing activities “solely for uses reasonably related” to the federal regulatory process.”


The Federal Circuit also recently denied petitions for rehearing en banc in two cases.

In GUI Global Products, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., the petition raised the following questions:

  1. Whether “[t]he Panel Erred in Finding Substantial Evidence that Kim ‘Teaches’ the ‘Plays . . . a Remote Device’ Element Because the Panel Conflated a Claim Element Being Taught With a Claim Element Being Obvious.”
  2. Whether “[t]he Panel’s Decision Conflicts with this Court’s Decisions in Net MoneyIN, Kennametal, Chamberlain Group, and BlephEx.”

In GUI Global Products, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., the petition raised the following question:

  • Whether, “if the Court grants Panel rehearing or rehearing in banc for Appeal Nos. 2022-2158 and 2022-2159, then [should] the Court also grant Panel rehearing or rehearing en banc for these two companion appeals, which were dismissed for mootness.”