Here is an update on recent en banc activity in patent cases at the Federal Circuit. Highlights include new petitions filed in cases raising questions about means-plus-function claims, patent eligibility, and attorneys’ fees. The court also denied a petition for en banc rehearing in a patent case raising questions about damages, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), and procedure. Here are the details.
New Petitions
Since our last update, new petitions were filed in two cases.
In Impact Engine, Inc. v. Google LLC, the petition presents the following questions:
- “Whether means-plus-function claims subject to § 112(f) are patent-eligible under § 101 as a matter of law.”
- “Whether means-plus-function claims must be properly construed before assessing their eligibility under § 101.”
In Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C., the petition presents the following questions:
- “Whether the panel legally erred in determining that, as a matter of law, district courts have no discretion to hold a party’s attorney jointly and severally liable for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.”
- “Whether the panel legally erred in determining that, as a matter of law, fees incurred by an accused infringer who prevailed in an inter partes review (‘IPR’) when the underlying litigation was stayed are never recoverable.”
Denial
The Federal Circuit denied a petition in one case.
- Brumfield v. IBG LLC (damages, 60(b), procedure)