Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
345 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
19-1342
Case
Kingston Technology Company v. SPEX Technologies, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether this Court must interpret and apply the words ‘under this section’ as used in the No-Appeal bar, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), without regard to whether appeal is taken...
Appeal No.
19-1329
Case
Hospira, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a party seeking to show that a property is inherent in a combination of prior art disclosures must affirmatively prove that the property is necessarily present in that combination,...
Appeal No.
19-1319
Case
General Electric Co. v. Raytheon Technologies Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether Article III’s injury-in-fact requirement, which the United States Supreme Court has held is an ‘irreducible minimum,’ can be relaxed for IPR petitioner appellants, contrary to this Court’s and Supreme...
Appeal No.
19-1283, 19-1284
Case
Dragon Intellectual Property v. DISH Network LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “How does the legal standard for the determination of ‘prevailing party’ status apply in a case terminated as a result of intervening mootness?” 2. “When, if ever, can a litigant...
Appeal No.
19-1264
Case
Cheetah Omni LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. require this Court to abrogate its federal common law rule that, regardless of state contract law, continuation...
Appeal No.
19-1261
Case
CG Technology Development, LLC v. FanDuel, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “the panel impermissibly engaged in appellate factfinding to read the primary obviousness reference . . . in such a way as to affirm unpatentability under a new claim...
Appeal No.
19-126
Case
In re Google LLC
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ‘requires the regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant conducting the defendant’s business at the alleged ‘place of business.'”
Appeal No.
19-1234
Case
Google LLC v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a ‘general’ obvious-to-try theory predicated on the idea that a user ‘might’ benefit from a reference’s modification (which is not the theory argued below) be adopted on appeal without...
Appeal No.
19-1224
Case
ARSUS, LLC v. John H. Firmage, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Should controlling Federal Circuit cases (Phillips, Johnson Worldwide, Renishaw supra, (and cases cited in those cases) that govern claim interpretation, be enforced, so that the Panel decision here will...
Appeal No.
19-1222
Case
23andMe, Inc. v. Ancestry.com DNA, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether this Court has now carved out a categorical exception to claims incorporating natural correlations, even where the claims recite novel techniques, in contravention of Supreme Court and this...
Appeal No.
19-1212, 19-1456
Case
Mira Advanced Technology v. Microsoft Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Board’s approach used to construct ‘contact list’, and thus its construction, are arbitrary and capricious, and both should therefore be set aside.”
Appeal No.
19-1210
Case
DiStefano Patent Trust III v. LinkedIn Corp.
Subject
Procedure
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Federal Circuit’s standard for evaluating a Complaint’s factual allegations on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, requiring that the district court determine if the factual allegations are...
Appeal No.
19-1208
Case
Thunder Power v. Byton North America Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court’s application of Federal Circuit Rule 36 exceeds the scope of permissible use of a summary affirmance such that it violates constitutional guarantees of due process.” 2. “Whether...
Appeal No.
19-1202
Case
Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Company
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Polaris Innovations Limited presents the following questions: 1. “Whether severance of the tenure protections for Administrative Patent Judges (‘APJs’) was not available to the Arthrex panel to remedy the violation of...
Appeal No.
19-1201
Case
Alfred E. Mann Foundation v. Cochlear Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the ‘book of wisdom’ permits a party seeking damages for patent infringement to rely on an unforeseeable stock price six years after the hypothetical negotiation date to grossly...
Appeal No.
19-1177
Case
Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a stated combination of one reference with ‘general knowledge,’ the alleged general knowledge is based on the teaching of a single second reference, be used to circumvent consideration of...
Appeal No.
19-1169
Case
Samsung Electronics America v. Prisua Engineering Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether the panel’s decision to remand this case to the to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “for consideration of whether the Board can apply prior art to claims the...
Appeal No.
19-1165
Case
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he panel improperly substituted its own obviousness determination for one that should have been made in the first instance by the Board, thus intruding on the domain entrusted to...
Appeal No.
19-1164
Case
Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “[W]hen 35 U.S.C. § 103 dictates that obviousness assess whether ‘the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole...
Appeal No.
19-1154, 19-1152
Case
Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the Panel acted contrary to the standard for substantial evidence when it “upheld the Board’s decision that dependent claims 3 and 12 of U.S. Patent No 7,023,034 were...