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.
19-2003, 19-2004
Case
Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the PTAB “applied the wrong claim construction standard.” 2. Whether “the PTAB impermissibly acted as an advocate, exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated due process.”
Appeal No.
19-2000, 19-2005, 19-2006
Case
Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the PTAB “applied the wrong claim construction standard.” 2. Whether “the PTAB impermissibly acted as an advocate, exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated due process.”
Appeal No.
19-1998, 19-1999, 19-2001, 19-2002
Case
Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the PTAB “applied the wrong claim construction standard.” 2. Whether “the PTAB impermissibly acted as an advocate, exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated due process.”
Appeal No.
19-1994
Case
Stuart v. Rust-Oleum Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Rust-Oleum’s Questions Presented: 1. “Whether this Court erred by vacating and remanding this case based on an Appointments Clause challenge[] raised for the first time in a single pre-briefing motion before...
Appeal No.
19-1956
Case
Fall Line Patents, LLC v. United Patents, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this Court’s mandamus power is categorically unavailable to police egregious violations of the Board’s duty to apply the real-party-in-interest rules to petitioners whose entire business model is to challenge...
Appeal No.
19-1918
Case
In re PersonalWeb Technologies LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the court erred in ruling “that the Kessler doctrine precluded claims of infringement arising after this dismissal with prejudice—which involved no finding whatsoever of noninfringement.” 2. Whether “[t]he Panel’s...
Appeal No.
19-1871
Case
Pfizer Inc. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Director Iancu’s Questions 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...
Appeal No.
19-1864, 19-1960
Case
GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“May a Panel of this Court disregard the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that the Petition did not present evidence or arguments that features recited by claims 2-4 and...
Appeal No.
19-1846
Case
Consumer 2.0, Inc. v. Tenant Turner, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Can a court determine at the pleading stage that a claimed method or claim element is unconventional yet not unknown enough to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by...
Appeal No.
19-1838, 19-1839, 19-1840
Case
LiquidPower Specialty Products Inc. v. Baker Hughes
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether objective evidence of nonobviousness may be considered when deciding key obviousness questions such as whether a skilled artisan would have motivation to combine prior art references with a reasonable...
Appeal No.
19-1808 (L), -1812, -1813, -1814
Case
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Is it erroneous for a court to resolve a claim construction dispute in the context of a Rule 12 eligibility challenge without claim construction?” 2. “Is it erroneous to place...
Appeal No.
19-1803
Case
Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. When an Examiner rejects a claim on the basis of obviousness, must that rejection contain within its four corners all of the elements of a prima facie case of...
Appeal No.
19-1794, 19-1223
Case
SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
19-1761
Case
IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether this Court’s decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), holding that the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (‘APJs’) to the...
Appeal No.
19-1756, 19-1934
Case
C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the panel erred in adopting a bright-line rule that claims reciting printed matter must be directed solely to that printed matter in order to be abstract as a mental...
Appeal No.
19-1746
Case
Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether under the doctrine of repair as applied to design patents the article of manufacture undergoing the repair or reconstruction analysis is determined by a claiming test that demonstrably does...
Appeal No.
19-1745
Case
Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.
Subject
Attorney Fees
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether the Federal Circuit’s “‘prevailing party’ jurisprudence has diverged from most sister circuits in contradiction of Supreme Court law.”
Appeal No.
19-1726
Case
Huang v. Huawei Technologies Co.
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the panel decision did not prove the devices accused in case2 are ‘essentially the same’ as the devices accused in case 1 with evidence of detail comparison and...
Appeal No.
19-1708, 19-1709
Case
Twitter, Inc. v. Vidstream LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
If “a skilled artisan would have recognized that a patent’s claimed functionality could have been performed in either of two ways that were shown in the prior art, [are] both...
Appeal No.
19-1671
Case
VirnetX Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hether the Court’s reasoning in Arthrex extends to inter partes reexamination proceedings.”