En Banc Activity / Featured / Petitions
on

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, three new petitions have been filed, and two previously filed petitions have been denied. The first new petition raises a question related to Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement when the patent has already expired; the second raises a question regarding whether a court can rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of a patent after ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing; and the third raises a question concerning collateral estoppel related to a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The two denied petitions came in a pro se case and in an appeal related to obviousness. Here are the details.

New Petitions

Since our last update, petitioners have filed three new en banc petitions.

In In re Entresto, Nanjing Noratech Pharmaceutical raises the following question:

  • “Whether the availability of a pediatric exclusivity period gives a court Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement even after the patent has expired.”

In Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc., Lowe raises the following question:

  • “Can a district court consider and rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity and issue an alternate ruling after first ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing — which could not be cured?”

In Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Groupon raises the following issue:

  • Whether “[t]he panel erred in determining a patent owner is not precluded from asserting patent claims that do not differ materially from claims the Federal Circuit had affirmed were unpatentable based upon a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and in concluding the patent owner is not collaterally estopped from arguing the validity of those claims under this Court’s precedents.”

New Denials

Since our last update, the court denied two petitions for en banc rehearing: