En Banc Activity / Featured / Panel Activity / Petitions
on

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit in patent cases. Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing was filed in a patent case raising questions related to eligibility. One new response was filed in response to a petition raising a question related to unfair competition claims. Finally, the Federal Circuit denied two petitions for en banc rehearing that raised questions related to the written description requirement and venue, respectively. Here are the details.

New Petition

Since our last update, one new petition for en banc rehearing has been filed at the Federal Circuit. It was filed in US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC. In its petition, US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC asked the court to review the following questions:

  1. Whether the panel “misapprehended aspects of the claims and overlooked the extensive computer code that is part of the specification, both of which explain ‘how’ the goal of asynchronous review of a presentation is achieved.”
  2. Whether the panel erred in its “application of Alice step one to claims reciting specific technological means for achieving technological results, particularly in cases involving the manipulation of multiple data streams.”

New Response

Since our last update, one new response to a petition was filed. It was filed 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.”

Now, in its response, Indect argues the petition rests on an incorrect premise that “the panel ‘overlooked'” precedent and “has sanctioned an ‘expansion’ of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act that permits Lanham Act liability based on litigation conduct.” According to Indect, “nothing in the panel’s opinion authorizes a § 43(a) claim based on the mere act of filing suit.” Indect explains that its Lanham Act claim “is directed to Park Assist’s separate, downstream conduct in the marketplace.” According to Indect, en banc rehearing is unnecessary because “[t]he panel did not change the law” and, in particular, “did not enlarge the substantive reach of § 43(a).” Moreover, it says, there is no “intra-circuit conflict.”

Denials

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