Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
232 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
21-147
Case
In re Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a district court’s mere application of each § 1404(a) factor precludes mandamus relief even in the face of multiple clear legal errors in the analysis?” Whether “the panel decision is...
Appeal No.
20-2134, 20-2137
Case
Cephalon, Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a judgment of non-obviousness based on a purported lack of motivation to make a minor variation to the prior art and a misapplication of teach-away to overcome express teachings...
Appeal No.
20-1812
Case
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that ‘jurisdictional rules should be clear.’ Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 621 (2002). Federal Rule of...
Appeal No.
20-1800
Case
Ingevity Corp. v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel’s ruling that the alleged prior inventors had to appreciate the limitations of the claimed invention to establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) required vacatur of the...
Appeal No.
20-1715, 20-1716
Case
Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an assignment agreement must use ‘present tense words of execution’ and not ‘passive verbs in indefinite or future tense’ to automatically transfer title to a future invention, as the...
Appeal No.
20-1438
Case
Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Does anticipation require a showing both that a prior art reference itself is ‘operative’ and that the prior art enables the challenged claims?” Whether “[t]he panel’s decision misapprehends or overlooks the...
Appeal No.
20-1289, 20-1290
Case
The Chemours Co. v. Daikin Industries, Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this Court has authority to review and reverse an agency’s determination on a factual ground, here, ‘teaching away,’ that was explicitly disclaimed by the party bearing the burden of...
Appeal No.
20-1237
Case
Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this Court may ignore the corroborated expert testimony of both sides’ expert witnesses with respect to the particular meaning of a term of art in a particular field where...
Appeal No.
20-1144
Case
Intex Recreation Corp. v. Team Worldwide Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he panel decision warrants en banc rehearing because the panel went outside the grounds as set forth in the IPR petition to reverse the Board’s determination of patentability, which...
Appeal No.
19-1778
Case
Oren Technologies, LLC v. Proppant Express Investments LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Panel decision is contrary to the following precedents of this Court: In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,...
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.
21-1614, 21-1616, 21-1617, 21-1673, 21-1674, 21-1675, 21-1676, 21-1677, 21-1738, 21-1739, 21-1740, 21-1741
Case
Intel Corp. v. VLSI Technologies LLC
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel’s decision is contrary to the following decisions: Cuozzo Speech Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016); SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348...
Appeal No.
21-150
Case
In re Uber Technologies, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a district court transfer a matter to a statutorily proscribed district based on expressly disregarding undisputed facts creating the proscription?” “What is the applicable standard of review for a petition...
Appeal No.
21-139, 21-140
Case
In re Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a district court transfer a matter to a statutorily proscribed district based on expressly disregarding undisputed facts creating the proscription?” “What is the applicable standard of review for a petition...
Appeal No.
21-1128
Case
Think Products, Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the ‘forfeiture’ rule announced in Customedia” is valid and whether “any forfeiture was possible before June 21, 2021.” Whether, “if no forfeiture of the right to challenge the Appointments Clause...
Appeal No.
21-1043, 21-1044, 21-1046
Case
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review where the appeal argues that the decision...
Appeal No.
2019-1952, 2019-2394
Case
Khan v. Hemosphere Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) provides that a motion for sanctions ‘must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court...
Appeal No.
20-2333
Case
Gabara v. Facebook, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether specific limitations recited in the claim language that describe the ‘claim advance’ over the prior art can be ignored in the court’s determination of patent eligibility.” “Whether a claim that...
Appeal No.
20-2309
Case
Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-2297
Case
Mankaruse v. Intel Co.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented