Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
391 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-1428
Case
Huang v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
23-2346
Case
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an abandoned patent publication that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date is a ‘prior art . . . printed publication[]’ that can be a basis...
Appeal No.
23-2285
Case
Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether objectively incorrect statements of fact regarding the challenged patent and the prior art reference can provide substantial evidence for findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” 2. “Whether...
Appeal No.
23-2218, 23-2220, 23-2221
Case
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
First Petition: Whether “the panel’s January 10, 2025 order denying Novartis’s Rule 8 motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot and lifting the administrative injunction entered on August 14, 2024,...
Appeal No.
23-1790
Case
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether an accused structure can be found to infringe a means-plus-function limitation merely based on expert testimony that the structure performs the same function as the structure disclosed in...
Appeal No.
23-1630
Case
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Power2B, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a disputed claim recital, which formed the basis of a restriction requirement, should be construed to encompass all embodiments or only the specific embodiments corresponding to the elected group?”
Appeal No.
23-1354, 23-1384, 23-1407
Case
Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Does an appellee’s listing of less than all claims challenged in an IPR on the inside cover of its response brief affirmatively waive alternative grounds for affirmance found by the...
Appeal No.
23-1342, 23-1345
Case
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1.”The panel failed to address critical arguments presented in Labcorp’s briefing that directly contradict its decision, warranting rehearing and reversal of the Board.” 2. “Regardless of these errors, en banc review...
Appeal No.
22-1769, 22-2261
Case
Lone Star Technological Innovations, LLC v. AsusTek Computer, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether patent ownership can be proven without a written document?” 2. “Whether the alleged infringer can waive its patent ownership challenge by not raising that issue explicitly in the pre-trial...
Appeal No.
23-1101
Case
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Granted
Question(s) Presented
Did the court err in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and...
Appeal No.
21-2348
Case
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Granted
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the rigid approach to evaluating the obviousness of designs under In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (CCPA 1982) and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc., 101 F.3d 100...
Appeal No.
18-2170
Case
Bedgear, LLC v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Moot
Question(s) Presented
Bedgear, LLC asserts that “[e]n banc review is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity in the Court’s decisions in all pending cases that raise the same important constitutional question whether...
Appeal No.
24-1936
Case
Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“This case presents a question that is fundamental to the Hatch-Waxman framework: what patents must be listed in the Orange Book?”
Appeal No.
24-1685
Case
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patent’s specification limits claims so as to require a particular feature when the specification (1) disparages prior art for omitting that feature, (2) describes ‘the invention’ as containing...
Appeal No.
24-1580
Case
Heidary v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-1133
Case
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patent’s specification limits claims so as to require a particular feature when the specification (1) disparages prior art for omitting that feature, (2) describes ‘the invention’ as containing...
Appeal No.
24-1061
Case
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Does a general disclosure that a pharmaceutical compound may be combined with any of five inactive ingredients sufficiently describe ‘picture claims’ to specific formulations that are ‘narrow’ and recite...
Appeal No.
24-1040
Case
Mark H. Sandstrom v. Microsoft Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether the patent owner should carry the burden of proving non-enablement in an IPR.”
Appeal No.
23-2329
Case
Khan v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
23-1805
Case
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Panel decision announced an unprecedented an unsupported legal standard for adjudicating the scope of [inter partes reviews].” Whether “the Panel’s holding that IPR petitioners need not provide any ‘evidence...