Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
198 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-1806, 20-1808
Case
Baxter Corp. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Did the Board err when it used an uncited figure from a printed publication to “deci[de] to institute the subject IPR, and then find[] all challenged claims of [the ’273...
Appeal No.
20-1189
Case
Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Oki Data Americas, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether the full prosecution history, including subsequent prosecution history for the asserted patents in which an explicit definition of the subject term is tendered, accepted and applied, can correct an...
Appeal No.
20-1090, 20-1148
Case
John Bean Technologies Corp. v. Morris & Associates, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an equitable affirmative defense like equitable intervening rights negates infringement and thus excuses a district court from considering willfulness in determining whether the defendant has unclean hands.” “Whether a district...
Appeal No.
20-1009, 20-1034
Case
Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether waiver prevents a challenge to claim construction on appeal sua sponte where a party’s waiver is based on the fact that the original claim construction was (i) sponsored by...
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.
18-1976, 18-2023
Case
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Subject
Patent8 Amici
Status
Moot
Question(s) Presented
“The questions concern whether induced infringement can be used to nullify a provision of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. Congress specified in Hatch-Waxman that when a drug is no longer patented and...
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.
20-2196
Case
Arunachalam v. Citigroup, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the lower and appellate courts have a ministerial duty to enforce the Law of the Case and Law of the Land.” “If so, when is this Court going to do...
Appeal No.
20-2132, 20-2211, 20-2212, 20-2213, 21-1033
Case
Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
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.
20-1723, 20-1901
Case
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a court is permitted to use the ‘prima facie’ framework to make a determination of obviousness before considering the objective indicia of non-obviousness, and then only look at those...
Appeal No.
20-1639
Case
Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Is “[a] stipulation of non-infringement in light of an adverse claim construction . . . evidence that a patent owner never had a viable theory of infringement?” Should fees be awarded...
Appeal No.
20-1587, 20-1588, 20-1654, 20-1664, 20-1828, 20-1867, 20-2092, 20-2093
Case
Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Must a real party in interest or privy of a petitioner in an inter partes review participate in the IPR as a precondition to intervening in an appeal from an...
Appeal No.
20-1508
Case
Golden v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit . . . err when they dismissed [this] case on the ground of frivolousness?” “Did the United States Court of...
Appeal No.
20-1492
Case
Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-1483
Case
WPEM LLC v. SOTI Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“When a plaintiff is not aware of any reason to question the validity of an issued United States Patent, is that plaintiff allowed to rely on the statutory presumption of...
Appeal No.
20-1469, 20-1470
Case
Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Baylor College of Medicine
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does State sovereign immunity apply when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board adjudicates a private petition in Inter Partes Review and the patent is owned by a State?”
Appeal No.
20-1394, -1396, -1397, -1398
Case
Apple Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to terminate—contrary to statute—an instituted Covered Business Method or other post-grant review proceeding twelve...
Appeal No.
20-1373
Case
Biogen International GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the panel’s decision allows an infringer to avoid an innovator’s patent term extension by using the claimed and bioequivalent active moiety of the compound in the patentee’s approved...
Appeal No.
20-1368
Case
Shoffiett v. Goode
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented