Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
198 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
19-2430
Case
Document Security Systems, Inc. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which all parties have petitioned for...
Appeal No.
19-2423
Case
Waterblasting, LLC v. Iancu
Subject
Rule 36
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-620, title IV, § 414(a), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3335, 3362, amending the language in 35 U.S.C. § 144 to provide that...
Appeal No.
19-2411
Case
SIMO Holdings, Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network Technology Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“When construing claims of the form ‘a plurality of’ followed by a list of items separated by the word ‘and,’ whether the panel is correct that SuperGuide (which Petitioner contends...
Appeal No.
19-2402
Case
Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a generic drug manufacturer ‘has committed acts of infringement’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) in a judicial district by submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) seeking approval to...
Appeal No.
19-2400
Case
IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Where a non-English language foreign priority application is the best intrinsic evidence of the inventors’ understanding of claim scope, can the foreign priority application be discounted during claim construction due...
Appeal No.
19-2359, 20-1217
Case
SiOnyx LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he Panel overlooked or misapprehended that the language from the District Court’s injunction prohibiting ‘products practicing the disputed patents’ is indistinguishable from language previously vacated or modified by this...
Appeal No.
19-2346
Case
Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. v. Iancu
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether an incomplete restriction requirement, which omits and excludes large portions of the claimed invention from further examination without any legitimate statutory basis, provides adequate notice enabling an applicant...
Appeal No.
19-2339, 19-2231
Case
Vaporstream, Inc. v. Snap Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Snap Inc. presents the following questions: 1. “Whether the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges to the PTAB violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Art. 2, § 2, cl. 2,...
Appeal No.
19-2314
Case
Greatbatch Ltd. v. AVX Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether the district court erred as a matter of law in its multiple and contradictory constructions of the term ‘asymmetrical’ in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,905,627 (the ‘”627...
Appeal No.
19-2281
Case
Document Security Systems, Inc v. Seoul Semiconductor Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which all parties have petitioned for...
Appeal No.
19-2255, 19-2285
Case
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a patentee can overcome prosecution history estoppel under the tangentiality exception merely because the inventors ceded more claim scope than necessary[.]” “Whether a claim term written in binary form is...
Appeal No.
19-2243
Case
Agrofresh, Inc. v. UPL Limited
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which all parties have petitioned for...
Appeal No.
19-2215
Case
Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and Supreme Court precedent, may a patentee prove literal infringement, not by comparing the accused product to the asserted claim and showing that each limitation...
Appeal No.
19-2076
Case
HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether claims directed to an industrial-scale commercial process for manufacturing products (here food products) of a quality ‘resembling’ a traditional, handmade product are indefinite, and thus invalid, when the...
Appeal No.
19-2057
Case
Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Unified Patents Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex . . . in which all parties have petitioned for en banc review: A. Whether the administrative patent judges of...
Appeal No.
19-2054, -2081
Case
Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Questions raised by Appellants: 1. “Whether ‘an assignor can circumvent the doctrine of assignor estoppel by attacking the validity of a patent claim in the Patent Office’—even though the assignor may...
Appeal No.
19-2050
Case
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Inc. v. Ono Pharmaceutical Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the panel erred in adopting a bright-line rule that the novelty and non-obviousness of an invention over alleged contributions to conception are ‘not probative’ of whether those alleged contributions...
Appeal No.
19-2041
Case
Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Questions Presented by Packet Intelligence LLC: “Whether an accused infringer’s ‘initial burden of production’ under Arctic Cat requires production of evidence that an allegedly unmarked article practices the invention, or is...
Appeal No.
19-2026
Case
Mirror Imaging, LLC v. Fidelity Information Services
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex . . . in which all parties have petitioned for en banc review: A. Whether the administrative patent judges of...
Appeal No.
19-2011
Case
Concert Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Incyte Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
The government presents the following questions: 1. “This case presents the same three questions presented in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), in which...