Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in patent cases that raised questions related to claim construction and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Federal Circuit also invited a response to a petition raising questions about unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act. Here are the details.
En Banc Cases
There are no pending en banc cases.
En Banc Petitions
New Petitions
Since our last update, no new petitions for en banc hearing or rehearing have been filed.
Invitations for Response
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit invited a response to the petition in Indect USA Corp. v. Park Assist, LLC. In its petition, Park Assist asked the court to consider the following question:
- “Whether evidence of litigation is admissible to support an unfair competition claim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.”
Denials
Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has denied two petitions for en banc rehearing in the following patent cases:
In Clantech, Inc. v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc., Modern Font Applications LLC and Clantech, Inc. asked the following questions:
- Whether “a claim element (or term) in a single patent claim has the same meaning throughout the claim.”
- Whether “the Board [complied] with the Administrative Procedure Act in inter partes reviews, by timely informing the patent owner of the matters of fact and law asserted.”
- Whether “the Board evaluate[d] evidence of inventor corroboration under the rule of reason and not extend the requirement of corroboration beyond reasonable bounds.”
In Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc., Wonderland Switzerland asked the following question:
- “When performing plain meaning analysis for unconstrued claim terms, should courts consider what the patent teaches about the plain meaning in, for example, embodiments and dependent claims?”