Petitions - Fed Circuit Blog

| Sitemap Contact Sign Up

Search By

Status

Subject

400 Petitions

Appeal No.

Case

Subject

Status

Question(s) Presented

Polaris Innovations Limited v. Kingston Technology Co.

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...

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether courts can find patent claims ineligible without identifying any precise ineligible concept the claims are allegedly directed to.” 2. “Whether, on summary judgment, the Federal Circuit can disregard facts...

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Iancu

Question(s) Presented

“Where a patent challenger does not dispute that the patent is entitled to a particular priority date, does the patentee nonetheless bear the burden to affirmatively prove entitlement to that...

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...

Board of Regents of the University of Texas System v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), dictates venue in state party patent infringement cases.” 2. “Whether state sovereignty includes the right to not litigate in a nonresident...

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...

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20