Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
409 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-2148
Case
Li v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Pending
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.
24-1202
Case
Longitude Licensing Ltd. v. Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
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.
23-2437
Case
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[b]y requiring any machine learning invention to claim both (1) new applications of machine learning and (2) machine learning models unknown in the prior art, the panel confuses...
Appeal No.
23-2189, 23-2190
Case
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he Board shifted the burden to prove unpatentability away from the patent challenger by requiring the patent owner to prove a claim limitation does not include certain scope...
Appeal No.
23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400
Case
Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court can invalidate a patent claim on appeal from the PTAB where the petitioner below failed to address a claim limitation in its petition for inter partes...
Appeal No.
23-2138
Case
North Star Technology International Ltd. v. Latham Pool Products, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the undefined and standardless ‘sufficiently distinct’ test for design-patent infringement, as well as its application at the summary-judgment stage, conflicts with Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871),...
Appeal No.
23-1359
Case
Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he panel erred in determining a patent owner is not precluded from asserting patent claims that do not differ materially from claims the Federal Circuit had affirmed were unpatentable...
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.
24-2256
Case
Golden v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
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.
24-1936
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.
24-1428
Case
Huang 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.
23-2346
Case
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
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...