Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
391 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
18-1635
Case
SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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,...
Appeal No.
18-1613
Case
Automotive Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1607
Case
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1602
Case
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Semiconductor Components
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1590
Case
Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1584
Case
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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.”
Appeal No.
18-1574
Case
IBM v. Booking Holdings Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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.”
Appeal No.
18-1551
Case
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether infringement under the doctrine of equivalents applies ‘only in exceptional cases.'”
Appeal No.
18-1489
Case
Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1400, 18-1401, 18-1402, 18-1403, 18-1537, 18-1540, 18-1541
Case
Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1367
Case
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1329, 18-1331, 18-1728
Case
Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1302
Case
Trading Technologies Int'l v. IBG LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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...
Appeal No.
18-1232
Case
Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
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.”
Appeal No.
18-1221
Case
Nalpropion Pharmaceuticals v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
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?...
Appeal No.
18-1167, 18-1171
Case
Celgene Corporation v. Peter
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
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?”
Appeal No.
18-1120
Case
Parallel Networks Licensing v. Microsoft Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “[U]nder Vita-Mix, which holds that an expert (testifying that certain conditions can result in direct infringement) may supplement a customer-use survey (establishing those conditions exist in the marketplace) to...
Appeal No.
18-1049
Case
Cioffi v. Google LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “What is the proper construction of Section 251’s requirement that, upon certain conditions being met, the Patent Office shall ‘reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original...
Appeal No.
18-1019
Case
INO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Is a method of medical treatment in which a drug is selectively administered to some patients in a known dose but withheld from other patients, based on the results of...
Appeal No.
17-2533
Case
Mantissa Corporation v. OnDot Systems, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Is a claimed process using generic computer hardware and software patent eligible under Alice Step One if it is ‘directed to an improvement of an existing technology’, Enfish, 822...