En Banc Activity / Petitions
on

Here is an update on recent en banc activity at the Federal Circuit. Since our last update, the court has set a date for oral argument in the only pending en banc case, which relates to the President’s Article II removal powers. Also, a new response was filed in response to a petition that raises questions about the written description requirement, and the court denied three petitions that raised questions regarding appellate procedure, claim construction, means-plus-function treatment, and damages. Here are the details.

En Banc Cases

Since our last update, the Federal Circuit has set December 10, 2026 as the date for oral argument in Jackler v. Department of Justice. As a reminder, in this case the court will review a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and answer the following question:

  • “Whether the Civil Service Reform Act’s procedural and substantive protections for federal workers conflict with the President’s Article II removal power.”

En Banc Petitions

New Responses

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

In its petition in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., Enanta Pharmaceuticals asked the court to consider the following questions:

  1. “Whether a specification that provides a detailed list of exemplary embodiments must literally recite each and every claimed embodiment in order to satisfy the written-description requirement.”
  2. “Whether that rule applies even where the list expressly states that it is nonlimiting, and regardless of whether disclosures elsewhere in the specification would reasonably convey to a POSA that the applicant possessed the full scope of the claimed invention.”
  3. “Where a district court enters summary judgment using an incorrect legal standard and there is unrebutted expert evidence raising a genuine issue of fact under the correct legal standard of written description, whether an appellate court should reverse and remand rather than conduct its own written description assessment in the first instance.”

Now, in its response, Pfizer asserts he petition “identifies no point of law or fact that the panel overlooked or misapprehended and no issue of exceptional importance or conflict in precedent warranting en banc review.”

Denials

Since our last update, the Federal Circuit denied three petitions for en banc rehearing: