Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
433 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
24-1194, 24-1221, 24-1222, 24-1223
Case
CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Wolfspeed, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “May the Board adopt and apply a new claim construction for the first time in its Final Written Decisions and may the Court use Circuit Rule 36 to summarily...
Appeal No.
24-1181
Case
Shilpa Pharma, Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “May the Court find a patent claim anticipated when one of the claim limitations is admittedly absent from the anticipatory reference?” 2. “May the Court redraft a patent claim by...
Appeal No.
24-1177
Case
PowerBlock Holdings, Inc. v. iFit, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a system that performs an abstract idea avoid ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by reciting conventional components that perform only their basic functions at a high degree of...
Appeal No.
24-1156, 24-1160, 24-1161, 24-1162
Case
SurfCast, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Panel failed to apply its own precedent in Phillips and subsequent cases when reviewing the PTAB’s claim construction.” 2. “Whether the Panel erred in upholding the PTAB’s claim...
Appeal No.
24-1133
Case
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patent’s specification limits claims so as to require a particular feature when the specification (1) disparages prior art for omitting that feature, (2) describes ‘the invention’ as containing...
Appeal No.
24-1061
Case
Allergan USA, Inc. v. MSN Laboratories Private Ltd.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Does a general disclosure that a pharmaceutical compound may be combined with any of five inactive ingredients sufficiently describe ‘picture claims’ to specific formulations that are ‘narrow’ and recite...
Appeal No.
24-1040
Case
Mark H. Sandstrom v. Microsoft Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether the patent owner should carry the burden of proving non-enablement in an IPR.”
Appeal No.
23-2437
Case
Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[b]y requiring any machine learning invention to claim both (1) new applications of machine learning and (2) machine learning models unknown in the prior art, the panel confuses...
Appeal No.
23-2346
Case
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an abandoned patent publication that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date is a ‘prior art . . . printed publication[]’ that can be a basis...
Appeal No.
23-2329
Case
Khan v. Merit Medical Systems, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
23-2317, 23-2319
Case
In re Entresto
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the availability of a pediatric exclusivity period gives a court Article III jurisdiction to adjudicate patent infringement even after the patent has expired.”
Appeal No.
23-2308
Case
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Did a panel of this Court err when it concluded that a district court held a Rule 52 evidentiary trial even though (i) the parties agree that the district...
Appeal No.
23-2285
Case
Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether objectively incorrect statements of fact regarding the challenged patent and the prior art reference can provide substantial evidence for findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” 2. “Whether...
Appeal No.
23-2267
Case
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]o avoid confusion, inconsistent rulings, and inequitable results, the Court should grant panel or en banc rehearing, and rule that SXM has satisfied the reliance element of equitable estoppel...
Appeal No.
23-2218, 23-2220, 23-2221
Case
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
First Petition: Whether “the panel’s January 10, 2025 order denying Novartis’s Rule 8 motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot and lifting the administrative injunction entered on August 14, 2024,...
Appeal No.
23-2189, 23-2190
Case
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he Board shifted the burden to prove unpatentability away from the patent challenger by requiring the patent owner to prove a claim limitation does not include certain scope...
Appeal No.
23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400
Case
Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court can invalidate a patent claim on appeal from the PTAB where the petitioner below failed to address a claim limitation in its petition for inter partes...
Appeal No.
23-2153
Case
Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, the amendment or cancellation of one claim can limit the scope of equivalents available for a separate claim that does not recite...
Appeal No.
23-2144, 23-2145, 23-2146, 23-2147, 23-2414, 23-2415, 23-2442, 23-2443
Case
Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Do “the prosecution history statements in prior [inter partes reviews] disclaim the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s] broader . . . constructions?” 2. Does “the prosecution history of the related...
Appeal No.
23-2138
Case
North Star Technology International Ltd. v. Latham Pool Products, Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the undefined and standardless ‘sufficiently distinct’ test for design-patent infringement, as well as its application at the summary-judgment stage, conflicts with Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871),...