Petitions - Fed Circuit Blog

| Sitemap Contact Sign Up

Search By

Status

Subject

375 Petitions

Appeal No.

Case

Subject

Status

Question(s) Presented

Bridge and Post, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

Whether, in light of the Federal Circuit’s case law on the computer-related arts, “this Circuit’s application of the two-prong Alice test no longer accomplishes its sole purpose: to determine whether...

Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether objective evidence of nonobviousness under Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), is entitled to a presumption of nexus, where unrebutted evidence establishes that the objective...

Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “Does the decision conflict with Section 112 and undermine genus claiming?” 2. “Does the decision conflict with the Seventh Amendment?”

Swagway, LLC v. International Trade Commission

Question(s) Presented

“[W]hether the Federal Circuit should break with the precedent set by (1) the Supreme Court’s decision in B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293...

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co.

Question(s) Presented

Whether “[t]he panel erred by reviewing (and remanding) the threshold §42.301(b) institution obviousness determination, rather than reviewing the Board’s merits §103 obviousness determination,” given “Congress’s statutory directive in the AIA,...

Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether under the doctrine of repair as applied to design patents the article of manufacture being repaired is determined by an embodiment test similar to that used for method...

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) of the America Invents Act (‘AIA’) requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘Board’) to assess the timeliness of inter partes review (‘IPR’) petitions...

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) of the America Invents Act (‘AIA’) requires the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘Board’) to assess the timeliness of inter partes review (‘IPR’) petitions...

Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission

Question(s) Presented

Question presented by appellants-intervenors CJ CheilJedang Corp.: Whether “[t]he majority’s decision and the Hospira panel’s decision endorse ‘prosecution-remorse’ arguments that eviscerate the bedrock principles and purposes of PHE.” Questions presented by Ajinomoto...

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether inter partes review, as retroactively applied to the ‘541 Patent, is constitutional.” 2. “Whether inter partes review comports with the due process requirements of the Constitution.”

IBM v. Booking Holdings Inc.

Question(s) Presented

“[W]hether an entity performs a method step by causing third-party hardware or software to perform that method step on a remote device.”

Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.

Question(s) Presented

“Whether infringement under the doctrine of equivalents applies ‘only in exceptional cases.'”

Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC

Question(s) Presented

“Did the panel contradict this Court’s and Supreme Court precedent by finding the claims-at-issue subject to CBM jurisdiction and ‘abstract’ under § 101, where the claims-at-issue are substantively the same...

18-1400, 18-1401, 18-1402, 18-1403, 18-1537, 18-1540, 18-1541

Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether the panel lacked jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) to determine whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (‘PTO’) properly instituted and ordered joinder of an inter partes...

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.

Question(s) Presented

“Whether the Court can sidestep the district court’s erroneous holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunizes patent acquisitions from antitrust scrutiny by creating novel exceptions to settled Fourth Circuit collateral-estoppel law...

18-1329, 18-1331, 18-1728

Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “When conducting a design-patent infringement analysis under Gorham v. White, may a fact-finder consider the addition of brand names or other labeling on an otherwise infringing design?” 2. “When conducting...

Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG LLC

Question(s) Presented

“Did the panel contradict its own and Supreme Court precedent by holding that TT’s claims directed to the technological (under any reasonable meaning of the term) Ladder Tool — different...

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company

Question(s) Presented

“Whether subjecting patents that issued before the enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (‘AIA’) to inter partes review (‘IPR’) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

“To comply with the written-description requirement, must the specification describe ‘the invention, with all its claimed limitations,’ not just ‘that which makes it obvious,’ as this Court has long held?...

18-1167, 18-1171

Celgene Corporation v. Peter

Question(s) Presented

“Whether retroactive application of inter partes review (‘IPR’), to patent claims issued before the America Invents Act (‘AIA’), constitutes an unconstitutional taking?”

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19