Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
380 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
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...
Appeal No.
20-2009
Case
Andra Group, LP v. Victoria's Secret Stores, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether it is a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for a court to consider, as a threshold matter in a patent venue dispute, whether the place of business of...
Appeal No.
20-1993
Case
FG SRC, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the panel decision allowing Petitioner to replace its primary asserted reference with what the Board found to be ‘a different document’ submitted in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response...
Appeal No.
20-1937
Case
Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Baxter Corp. Englewood
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (en banc); Oil States Energy Servs.,...
Appeal No.
20-1933
Case
Biogen International GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does 35 U.S.C. § 112’s requirement to provide ‘a written description of the invention’ require that the specification prove the invention’s efficacy?” “Does a specification that discloses multiple embodiments have to...
Appeal No.
20-1925, 20-1926
Case
FG SRC, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the panel decision affirming a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment should be allowed to stand.”
Appeal No.
20-1921, 20-1922, 20-1943, 20-1944
Case
Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does the presumption of nexus apply to industry praise where the praised product is an embodiment of the claim and the claim is for the whole system (not a small...
Appeal No.
20-1812
Case
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly admonished that ‘jurisdictional rules should be clear.’ Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 621 (2002). Federal Rule of...
Appeal No.
20-1806, 20-1808
Case
Baxter Corp. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Did the Board err when it used an uncited figure from a printed publication to “deci[de] to institute the subject IPR, and then find[] all challenged claims of [the ’273...
Appeal No.
20-1800
Case
Ingevity Corp. v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel’s ruling that the alleged prior inventors had to appreciate the limitations of the claimed invention to establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) required vacatur of the...
Appeal No.
20-1793, 20-1794
Case
Omega Patents, LLC v. CalAmp Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[W]hat evidence is required to establish that a multi-patent license is sufficiently comparable for purposes of built-in apportionment of royalties on a single patent?”
Appeal No.
20-1785
Case
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following decisions of the Supreme Court and precedents of this Court: Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Integrated Network Corp., 972 F.2d...
Appeal No.
20-1760
Case
Yu v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
 “Whether the specific requirements recited in the language of a claim can be disregarded in determining the ‘focus’ of the claim under step one of the Alice/Mayo test for patent-eligibility.” “Whether...
Appeal No.
20-1758
Case
Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc.
Subject
Patent3 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the Court’s ‘written description’ requirement is contrary to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 (now § 112(a)).”
Appeal No.
20-1723, 20-1901
Case
Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a court is permitted to use the ‘prima facie’ framework to make a determination of obviousness before considering the objective indicia of non-obviousness, and then only look at those...
Appeal No.
20-1715, 20-1716
Case
Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an assignment agreement must use ‘present tense words of execution’ and not ‘passive verbs in indefinite or future tense’ to automatically transfer title to a future invention, as the...
Appeal No.
20-1685, 20-1704
Case
SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to the following precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016); Apple...