Petitions - Fed Circuit Blog

| Sitemap Contact Sign Up

Search By

Status

Subject

472 Petitions

Appeal No.

Case

Subject

Status

Question(s) Presented

25-1470, 25-1472

Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Question(s) Presented

1. “Under 35 U.S.C. § 316(e), the petitioner bears the burden of proving unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. Does the Board violate this statute by failing to address...

25-1306, 25-1307, 25-1473

Spero v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Question(s) Presented

“Whether the Board’s Final Written Decision violates 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) and well settled precedent by departing from the record evidence and formulating its own obviousness theory and affirmative factual...

Extremity Medical, LLC, v. Nextremity Solutions, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “If a patentee brings a District Court action for patent infringement when it knew or should have known that the asserted patent claim in that action was invalid, can...

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. v. Lupin Ltd.

Question(s) Presented

Whether the “panel decision is contrary to the following decision of the Supreme Court of the United States or the precedent of this Court: Pullman-Standard v. Swint, . . ....

Exafer Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp.

Question(s) Presented

“Whether § 284 requires that damages based on non-infringing product sales as a measure of a reasonable royalty be proximately tied to the use made of the patented invention, or...

24-2223, 24-2236, 24-2264

Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

“Is the application of this Court’s decision in Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 463 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) to require direct evidence of nexus to objective indicia of...

Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

Whether “[t]he panel erroneously relied on Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 55 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2022), when Genentech conflicts with prior Federal Circuit precedent and is therefore not controlling.”

Apple Inc. v. International Trade Commission

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether, for purposes of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3)(B), research and development investments made in a concededly non-patent-practicing device can be considered in determining whether a complainant has established a ‘significant...

Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Co.

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether adding functional method-of-use limitations to otherwise nonenabled genus claims renders the claims enabled, as the panel held.” 2. “Whether a specification’s disclosure of species outside the scope of a...

Range of Motion Products, Inc. v. Armaid Co.

Question(s) Presented

1. “The test for design-patent infringement that the Supreme Court established in Gorham inquires only as to whether an ordinary observer would find the appearance of two designs ‘substantially the...

Clearplay, Inc. v. DISH Network L.L.C.

Question(s) Presented

“[W]hether the Federal Circuit’s requirement of ‘particularized testimony and linking argument,’ as applied to set aside a jury’s equivalence verdict resting on panel-credited limitation-specific testimony and on Warner-Jenkinson enumerated factors,...

20-1173, 20-1174

Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

Whether “the panel decision is contrary to at least the following statute and precedents of this court: Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Stark...

EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC

Question(s) Presented

Did the court err in “failing to rigorously scrutinize a patentee’s reliance on supposedly comparable licenses” resulting in an “artificially inflated damages award that is divorced from market realities and...

LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC

Question(s) Presented

“Whether the rigid approach to evaluating the obviousness of designs under In re Rosen, 673 F.2d 388, 391 (CCPA 1982) and Durling v. Spectrum Furniture Co., Inc., 101 F.3d 100...

Bedgear, LLC v. Fredman Bros. Furniture Co.

Question(s) Presented

Bedgear, LLC asserts that “[e]n banc review is necessary to secure and maintain uniformity in the Court’s decisions in all pending cases that raise the same important constitutional question whether...

Question(s) Presented

“Whether a district court’s refusal to grant a pro se litigant CM/ECF access, while mandating a secondary, delayed ‘ADS’ or paper-filing system, creates a ‘Procedural Asymmetry’ that violates the principle...

In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Question(s) Presented

“Whether a defendant’s alleged performance of a single step of a claimed multi-step method in a judicial district is sufficient to establish that ‘the defendant has committed acts of infringement’...

In re Catanzaro

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether rehearing en banc is warranted where, after the panel’s denial of mandamus, the district court issued an order (Doc. 139) before the mandate had issued, relying on a...

Applications In Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether a plaintiff holding a recorded patent assignment, who reasonably believed it owned the asserted patents at the time the complaint was filed, lacks Article III constitutional standing or...

In re VirtaMove Corp.

Question(s) Presented

1. Whether, “[f]or the ‘clearly materialize’ burden of proof, the Google Decision is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit and failed to properly impose the burden on Google, leaving open the...

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8