Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
432 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-2335
Case
FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Do ordinary claim-construction principles control whether a preamble is limiting, or are preambles subject to special, categorical rules applicable to no other part of the claim?”
Appeal No.
24-1523, 24-1525
Case
Dynamite Marketing, Inc. v. The WowLine, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether an award of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 may be determined and calculated on the basis of a rejected claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C....
Appeal No.
23-2434
Case
Bayer Pharma Aktiengesellschaft v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“When may a court discount a claim limitation in the body of a claim for purposes of assessing patentability?”
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.
25-138
Case
In re VirtaMove Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether, “[f]or the ‘clearly materialize’ burden of proof, the Google Decision is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit and failed to properly impose the burden on Google, leaving open the...
Appeal No.
25-130
Case
In re VirtaMove Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether, “[f]or the ‘clearly materialize’ burden of proof, the Google Decision is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit and failed to properly impose the burden on Google, leaving open the...
Appeal No.
24-2256
Case
Golden v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-2148
Case
Li v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether a prior art reference needs to include a written description to disclose a negative limitation, or whether silence constitutes such a disclosure.” 2. “Whether the panel may interpret a...
Appeal No.
24-2030, 24-2031, 24-2032, 24-2033, 24-2035, 24-2036, 24-2037, 24-2038
Case
Wakefield v. Blackboard, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the inclusion of Judge Pauline Newman, or any judge who has a witnessed and documented state of deteriorating mental capacity is allowable in the proper application of 28 U.S.C....
Appeal No.
24-2024
Case
Golden v. Google, LLC
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
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.
24-1433, 24-1434, 24-1437, 24-1438, 24-1439, 24-1440, 24-1442
Case
New York University v. ResMed, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does a Rule 36 summary affirmance comport with precedent, the [Administrative Procedure Act], and Constitutional due process and property protections when the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board] ignored, and never...
Appeal No.
24-1428
Case
Huang v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-1401
Case
Acadia Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a first-filed, first-issued, later-expiring patent can be invalidated by a later-filed, later-issued, earlier-expiring patent for obviousness-type double patenting.”
Appeal No.
24-1202
Case
Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[r]ehearing en banc is necessary because the panel decision conflicts with the Court’s body of § 101 precedent applying Alice and introduces uncertainty as to the role of the...
Appeal No.
24-1194, 24-1221, 24-1222, 24-1223
Case
CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Wolfspeed, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “May the Board adopt and apply a new claim construction for the first time in its Final Written Decisions and may the Court use Circuit Rule 36 to summarily...