Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
163 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
2019-1952, 2019-2394
Case
Khan v. Hemosphere Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
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.
20-1723, 20-1901
Case
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
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.
19-2255, 19-2285
Case
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patentee can overcome prosecution history estoppel under the tangentiality exception merely because the inventors ceded more claim scope than necessary[.]” “Whether a claim term written in binary form is...
Appeal No.
19-2215
Case
Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and Supreme Court precedent, may a patentee prove literal infringement, not by comparing the accused product to the asserted claim and showing that each limitation...
Appeal No.
19-1918
Case
In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the court erred in ruling “that the Kessler doctrine precluded claims of infringement arising after this dismissal with prejudice—which involved no finding whatsoever of noninfringement.” 2. Whether “[t]he Panel’s...
Appeal No.
19-1558
Case
Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s unmistakable guidance, this Court erred in crafting a patent-specific preclusion doctrine that bars new issues and new claims that would survive the...
Appeal No.
19-1424
Case
Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Can a party who is not a patentee ‘have remedy by civil action for infringement’?”
Appeal No.
19-1076
Case
Verify Smart Corp. v. Askeladden, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
1. “[W]hether the Director of the USPTO can accept a petition for Inter Partes Review (‘IPR’) from a party, where acceptance of that petition requires determination of an issue outside...
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.
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.
20-1394, -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.
20-136
Case
In re Arunachalam
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether it is Sedition that Chief Justice Roberts engaged in conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta with fealty to the Queen of England...
Appeal No.
20-1298, -1299
Case
North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[r]efusing to hold North Star to its forfeiture” by not making an Appointments Clause challenge to the Board “is contrary to the precedent of the Supreme Court and this...
Appeal No.
20-1297
Case
North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[r]efusing to hold North Star to its forfeiture” by not making an Appointments Clause challenge to the Board “is contrary to the precedent of the Supreme Court and this...
Appeal No.
20-1295, -1296
Case
North Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[r]efusing to hold North Star to its forfeiture” by not making an Appointments Clause challenge to the Board “is contrary to the precedent of the Supreme Court and this...
Appeal No.
20-126
Case
In re Adobe Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Fifth [C]ircuit’s standard for granting mandamus petition related to transfer decision based on convenience factors in 1404(a), defined in In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304,...
Appeal No.
20-1251
Case
Huang v. Mediatek USA, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court failed to take into account the fact that Mr. Huang’s infringement contention clearly stated WHERE and HOW Nephos Inc. (MediaTeK USA) infringed the claims of the...
Appeal No.
20-1155
Case
Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
The government presents the following questions: 1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which...