Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
460 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
25-2026
Case
Applications In Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether a plaintiff holding a recorded patent assignment, who reasonably believed it owned the asserted patents at the time the complaint was filed, lacks Article III constitutional standing or...
Appeal No.
24-2118
Case
Willis Electric Co. v. Polygroup Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the panel erred in “focusing on design changes allegedly required for bodily incorporation” in determining obviousness. 2. Whether the panel’s apportionment analysis departs from the Supreme Court’s requirement that...
Appeal No.
24-2085, 24-2086
Case
Oasis Tooling, Inc. v. Siemens Industry Software Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “Are patent claims that recite the use of a computer to perform a distinct process to automate a task previously performed by humans, but in a different and improved...
Appeal No.
24-1686
Case
Genuine Enabling Technology LLC v. Sony Group Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following precedents of this Court: Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Solomon Techs., Inc. v....
Appeal No.
24-1667
Case
Q Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “using physical location to improve another basic computer function, file sharing, is ‘not . . . technological’ and not patent-eligible” given the court’s holding in Weisner v. Google LLC,...
Appeal No.
24-1408
Case
REGENXBIO Inc v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether routine manipulation of a naturally occurring DNA sequence, without more, is sufficient to confer patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
Appeal No.
23-2427
Case
Range of Motion Products, Inc. v. Armaid Co.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “The test for design-patent infringement that the Supreme Court established in Gorham inquires only as to whether an ordinary observer would find the appearance of two designs ‘substantially the...
Appeal No.
23-2226, 23-2234
Case
Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies
Subject
Patent4 Amici
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether, after the 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and this Court’s en banc decision in EcoFactor, a panel may treat as issues of ‘weight’ matters that go...
Appeal No.
21-2049, 24-1084, 24-1159
Case
Arlton v. Aerovironment, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Is the meaning of de minimis infringement as applied in the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1498 different from the long-established meaning of de minimis infringement under 35 U.S.C. §...
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.
26-128
Case
In re Kabir
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a district court’s refusal to grant a pro se litigant CM/ECF access, while mandating a secondary, delayed ‘ADS’ or paper-filing system, creates a ‘Procedural Asymmetry’ that violates the principle...
Appeal No.
26-104
Case
In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a defendant’s alleged performance of a single step of a claimed multi-step method in a judicial district is sufficient to establish that ‘the defendant has committed acts of infringement’...
Appeal No.
26-102
Case
In re Catanzaro
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether rehearing en banc is warranted where, after the panel’s denial of mandamus, the district court issued an order (Doc. 139) before the mandate had issued, relying on a...
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.
25-1269
Case
Sandstrom v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
25-1210, 25-1211
Case
Merck Serono S.A. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether a disclosure of an invention may be treated as a disclosure ‘by others’ or ‘by another’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (e) and thus as prior art to a...
Appeal No.
24-2335
Case
FMC Corp. v. Sharda USA, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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?”