Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
249 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
21-171
Case
In re Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“What level of deference should this Court afford on mandamus review of discretionary transfer decisions?”  Whether “this Court [can] find a clear abuse of discretion, amounting to a usurpation of judicial...
Appeal No.
21-1702
Case
Sgromo v. Target Brands Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the the panel decision is contrary to the following decision(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedents of this court”: “Mast, Foos Co. v. Stover...
Appeal No.
21-1638
Case
Kannuu Pty Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Can parties who engage in patent-licensing discussions agree that all disputes relating to the potential patent license will be adjudicated exclusively in district court, thereby precluding IPR proceedings on the...
Appeal No.
21-1491
Case
Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether courts can analyze the specification to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea before considering the language of the claim;” “Whether courts can disregard the claim limitations...
Appeal No.
20-1812
Case
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
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.
20-1793, 20-1794
Case
Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hat evidence is required to establish that a multi-patent license is sufficiently comparable for purposes of built-in apportionment of royalties on a single patent?”
Appeal No.
20-1758
Case
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court’s ‘written description’ requirement is contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (now § 112(a)).”
Appeal No.
20-1425
Case
Corephotonics, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he Board’s decision in the IPR here thus still violates the Appointments Clause and requires withdrawing the Court’s opinion and remanding to the PTO.”
Appeal No.
19-2286
Case
Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung
Subject
Patent
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel err[ed] in failing to recognize that Lubby provided Chung a qualified charge of infringement at the time they ended their collaboration on the products claimed in the...
Appeal No.
18-1976, 18-2023
Case
GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Subject
Patent5 Amici
Status
Pending
Question(s) Presented
Whether the “inducement doctrine can be used to nullify a provision of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments.” Whether when “a product has substantial noninfringing uses and the defendant has deleted instructions to practice...
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.
21-153
Case
In re DMF, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether inter partes review (IPR) estoppel under 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(2) bars an IPR petitioner from using a physical product to relitigate in district court the same invalidity issue that the...
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.
21-147
Case
In re Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
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.
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.
20-2344, 21-1019
Case
Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decision(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedent(s) of this court: Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli...