Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
294 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
21-1128
Case
Think Products, Inc. v. ACCO Brands Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the ‘forfeiture’ rule announced in Customedia” is valid and whether “any forfeiture was possible before June 21, 2021.” Whether, “if no forfeiture of the right to challenge the Appointments Clause...
Appeal No.
21-1070
Case
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether 35 U.S.C. §112 and this Court’s precedent require that, to have adequate written description, a claim limitation must be either expressly disclosed in the specification or necessarily present in...
Appeal No.
21-1043, 21-1044, 21-1046
Case
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review where the appeal argues that the decision...
Appeal No.
2021-2241, 2021-2242, 2021-2247, 2021-2248
Case
Sig Sauer Inc. v. NST Global, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, in an inter partes review, the Petition controls or can the Board decide a claim construction not placed at issue by the Parties.” “Whether, in an inter partes review, the...
Appeal No.
2021-2191, 2021-2192, 2021-2193, 2021-2195, 2021-2196, 2021-2197, 2021-2198, 2021-2199, 2021-2200
Case
CoolTVNetwork.com, Inc. v. Blackboard, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether it is proper to affirm a determination of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2, for failure to disclose an algorithm, when no algorithm is required because the functions are...
Appeal No.
2019-1952, 2019-2394
Case
Khan v. Hemosphere Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2) provides that a motion for sanctions ‘must be served under Rule 5, but it must not be filed or be presented to the court...
Appeal No.
20-2344, 21-1019
Case
Campbell Soup Co. v. Gamon Plus, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decision(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedent(s) of this court: Teva Pharms. Int’l GmbH v. Eli...
Appeal No.
20-2333
Case
Gabara v. Facebook, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether specific limitations recited in the claim language that describe the ‘claim advance’ over the prior art can be ignored in the court’s determination of patent eligibility.” “Whether a claim that...
Appeal No.
20-2319
Case
Sirius XM Radio Inc. v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft Zur Forderung Der Angewandten Forschung E.V.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decision(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedent(s) of this court, most notably Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual...
Appeal No.
20-2309
Case
Mankaruse v. Raytheon Co.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-2297
Case
Mankaruse v. Intel Co.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
20-2257
Case
Nature Simulation Systems Inc. v. Autodesk, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether courts should decide the ultimate legal question of indefiniteness without deferring to patent examiners, especially when the examiner offers no statement, reasoning, or analysis on indefiniteness.” “Whether indefiniteness is independent...
Appeal No.
20-2222, 21-1527
Case
The California Institute of Technology v. Broadcom Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether 35 U.S.C. §315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to instituted grounds as this Court held in Shaw, and whether that interpretation remains correct after SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu,...
Appeal No.
20-2196
Case
Arunachalam v. Citigroup, Inc.
Subject
Pro Se3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the lower and appellate courts have a ministerial duty to enforce the Law of the Case and Law of the Land.” “If so, when is this Court going to do...
Appeal No.
20-2134, 20-2137
Case
Cephalon, Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a judgment of non-obviousness based on a purported lack of motivation to make a minor variation to the prior art and a misapplication of teach-away to overcome express teachings...
Appeal No.
20-2132, 20-2211, 20-2212, 20-2213, 21-1033
Case
Apple Inc. v. Maxell, Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court has jurisdiction to review a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review where the appeal argues that the decision...
Appeal No.
20-2106
Case
Adapt Pharma Operations Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“May a challenger in an obviousness case show the requisite ‘motivat[ion] to combine the teachings of the prior art references,’ Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 566...
Appeal No.
20-2091
Case
Bondyopadhyay v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Did the panel err in concluding that the Claims Court correctly dismissed the claims at issue for reasons of res judicata or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
Appeal No.
20-2073, 20-2142
Case
Indivior UK Limited v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories S.A.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Is the written description requirement satisfied where (1) a patent’s priority application discloses a numeric range and numeric examples for an ingredient quantity, (2) the patent’s claims recite a numeric...
Appeal No.
20-2044
Case
Universal Secure Registry LLC v. Apple Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether step one of the Alice test for patentable subject matter requires a showing of ‘specificity,’ ‘unexpected results,’ or unconventional claim elements.” “Whether the two steps of the Alice test are...