Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
375 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
19-1794, 19-1223
Case
SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
19-1778
Case
Oren Technologies, LLC v. Proppant Express Investments LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Panel decision is contrary to the following precedents of this Court: In re NuVasive, 841 F.3d 966 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp.,...
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.”
Appeal No.
19-1669
Case
Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Iancu
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “[W]hether the Board may issue a final written decision in inter partes review proceedings, which invalidates duly issued patent claims based on a ground not asserted in the corresponding...
Appeal No.
19-1659
Case
ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a Notice of Allowability in a child application of a patent in an Inter Partes Review proceeding, facing the same prior art relied upon in the Inter Partes Review,...
Appeal No.
19-1649
Case
HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether or not the Panel’s decision that allowing any witness testimony on any aspect of obviousness, even using the standard dictionary definition of the commonly used word ‘obvious,’ by a...
Appeal No.
19-1643, 19-1644, 19-1645
Case
BioDelivery Sciences Int'l v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court has authority to review the PTAB’s final decision in a remanded IPR for compliance with a remand order—regardless of the PTAB’s characterization of its decision?” 2. “Whether...
Appeal No.
19-1602
Case
EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the bare idea of automating a known, manual process using a generic machine is a patent-eligible invention.”
Appeal No.
19-1582, 19-1584, 19-1635
Case
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. v. Nevro Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) is a change in intervening law that, when raised, must be applied to cases pending...
Appeal No.
19-1570
Case
Deep Green Wireless LLC v. Ooma, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“[T]he panel majority affirmed the Board’s decision, on the basis that the Board’s construction was ‘not inconsistent with the specification’s disclosure.’ But this Court has held that simply checking whether...
Appeal No.
19-1558
Case
Sowinski v. California Air Resources Board
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s unmistakable guidance, this Court erred in crafting a patent-specific preclusion doctrine that bars new issues and new claims that would survive the...
Appeal No.
19-1522
Case
Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer America Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether a state trade secret claim that requires resolution of who invented a patent claim, and whether patent claims read on an industry standard, ‘necessarily raises’ a federal issue...
Appeal No.
19-1506
Case
Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to at least the following . . . precedents of this Court: Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Gree Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed....
Appeal No.
19-1471
Case
Piccone v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Consideration by the full court is . . . necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the Court’s decisions as follows:” “The Panel Decision finding that the USPTO OED Director may...