Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
409 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
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.
23-2285
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.
23-2218, 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.
23-2124. 23-2125
Case
United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the panel overlooked the point of law that, “[b]ecause like cases must be decided alike, where the Board reaches ‘opposite holdings,’ the Board ‘must at least provide some reasoned...
Appeal No.
23-2042
Case
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he panel affirmed the judgment of induced infring[e]ment by relying on evidence of attempted-but-failed infring[e]ment” and whether “[a]ttempted infring[e]ment cannot suffice to prove practice of all claim elements.” 2....
Appeal No.
23-1841
Case
Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this precedential panel decision imposes a new requirement that a district court consider all issues feasibly raised before it, including relief not explicitly requested until a party’s reply brief...
Appeal No.
23-1805
Case
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Panel decision announced an unprecedented an unsupported legal standard for adjudicating the scope of [inter partes reviews].” Whether “the Panel’s holding that IPR petitioners need not provide any ‘evidence...
Appeal No.
23-1801, 23-1802, 23-1803
Case
Converter Manufacturing, LLC v. Tekni-Plex, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether by summarily affirming the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) under Fed. R. App. P. 36, this Court violated the Supreme Court’s mandate in...
Appeal No.
23-1790
Case
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether an accused structure can be found to infringe a means-plus-function limitation merely based on expert testimony that the structure performs the same function as the structure disclosed in...
Appeal No.
23-1786, 23-1871, 23-1893
Case
Lowe v. Shieldmark, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a district court consider and rule on a motion for summary judgment of invalidity and issue an alternate ruling after first ruling that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing...
Appeal No.
23-1712
Case
XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]his Court’s decision summarily affirming the district court’s judgment under Rule 36 without elaboration necessarily relied upon a flawed district court claim construction interpreting claim terms including the words...
Appeal No.
23-1630
Case
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Power2B, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a disputed claim recital, which formed the basis of a restriction requirement, should be construed to encompass all embodiments or only the specific embodiments corresponding to the elected group?”
Appeal No.
23-1629, 23-1631, 23-1753, 23-1745
Case
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Power2B, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether, absent a finding that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer, a disputed claim term should be construed contrary to its undisputed plain and ordinary meaning?” 2. “Whether the Court...
Appeal No.
23-1603, 23-1604
Case
Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does this Court apply a de novo or abuse of discretion standard of review for the question of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act...
Appeal No.
23-1546
Case
Altria Client Services LLC v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court’s ‘built-in apportionment’ doctrine is contrary to the Supreme Court’s rule in Garretson v. Clark, 111 U.S. 120 (1884), and should be overruled or at least limited to the...
Appeal No.
23-139
Case
In re RingCentral, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), absent venue manipulation, must facts supporting venue exist when suit is brought?”
Appeal No.
23-1362
Case
Vroom, Inc. v. Sidekick Technology, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiffs that all of the defendant’s asserted patent claims are invalid is sufficiently final for this Court to...
Appeal No.
23-1354, 23-1384, 23-1407
Case
Honeywell International Inc. v. 3G Licensing, S.A.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does an appellee’s listing of less than all claims challenged in an IPR on the inside cover of its response brief affirmatively waive alternative grounds for affirmance found by the...
Appeal No.
23-1342, 23-1345
Case
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Ravgen, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1.”The panel failed to address critical arguments presented in Labcorp’s briefing that directly contradict its decision, warranting rehearing and reversal of the Board.” 2. “Regardless of these errors, en banc review...