Search
Search | Sitemap Contact Sign Up

En Banc Petitions

Search By
Status
Subject
445 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
23-2308
Case
Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. v. Crown Packaging Technology, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Did a panel of this Court err when it concluded that a district court held a Rule 52 evidentiary trial even though (i) the parties agree that the district...
Appeal No.
23-2285
Case
Maxell, Ltd. v. Amperex Technology Limited
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether objectively incorrect statements of fact regarding the challenged patent and the prior art reference can provide substantial evidence for findings of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” 2. “Whether...
Appeal No.
23-2267
Case
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]o avoid confusion, inconsistent rulings, and inequitable results, the Court should grant panel or en banc rehearing, and rule that SXM has satisfied the reliance element of equitable estoppel...
Appeal No.
23-2218, 23-2220, 23-2221
Case
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Torrent Pharma Inc.
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
First Petition: Whether “the panel’s January 10, 2025 order denying Novartis’s Rule 8 motion for an injunction pending appeal as moot and lifting the administrative injunction entered on August 14, 2024,...
Appeal No.
23-2189, 23-2190
Case
BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he Board shifted the burden to prove unpatentability away from the patent challenger by requiring the patent owner to prove a claim limitation does not include certain scope...
Appeal No.
23-2184, 24-1399, 24-1400
Case
Power2B, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court can invalidate a patent claim on appeal from the PTAB where the petitioner below failed to address a claim limitation in its petition for inter partes...
Appeal No.
23-2153
Case
Colibri Heart Valve LLC v. Medtronic CoreValve LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether, under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, the amendment or cancellation of one claim can limit the scope of equivalents available for a separate claim that does not recite...
Appeal No.
23-2144, 23-2145, 23-2146, 23-2147, 23-2414, 23-2415, 23-2442, 23-2443
Case
Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Do “the prosecution history statements in prior [inter partes reviews] disclaim the [Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s] broader . . . constructions?” 2. Does “the prosecution history of the related...
Appeal No.
23-2138
Case
North Star Technology International Ltd. v. Latham Pool Products, Inc.
Subject
Patent2 Amici
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether the undefined and standardless ‘sufficiently distinct’ test for design-patent infringement, as well as its application at the summary-judgment stage, conflicts with Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871),...
Appeal No.
23-2124. 23-2125
Case
United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank N.A.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the panel overlooked the point of law that, “[b]ecause like cases must be decided alike, where the Board reaches ‘opposite holdings,’ the Board ‘must at least provide some reasoned...
Appeal No.
23-2117, 23-2116
Case
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does the presumption of validity set out in 35 U.S.C. § 282 apply to all written description cases or does the burden shift to the patentee when there is no...
Appeal No.
23-2110
Case
Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. Unified Patents, LLC
Subject
PatentAmicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Does the AIA create informational rights?” 2. “Does a patent owner faced with a petition for inter partes review have a right to know the identities of all real parties in...
Appeal No.
23-2098, 23-2150
Case
Wherevertv, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a district court can commit reversible error by not construing claim terms, even though the appellant never sought a construction of those terms and instead successfully convinced the district...
Appeal No.
23-2043, 23-2233, 23-2326
Case
Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Company, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“When performing plain meaning analysis for unconstrued claim terms, should courts consider what the patent teaches about the plain meaning in, for example, embodiments and dependent claims?”
Appeal No.
23-2042
Case
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories ltd.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he panel affirmed the judgment of induced infring[e]ment by relying on evidence of attempted-but-failed infring[e]ment” and whether “[a]ttempted infring[e]ment cannot suffice to prove practice of all claim elements.” 2....
Appeal No.
23-2033, 23-2034, 23-2035, 23-2036, 23-2037, 23-2038, 23-2039
Case
Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court may disregard key functional limitations of the claims that implement the improvement to the claimed invention over the prior art in conducting a patent eligibility analysis.” 2....
Appeal No.
23-1855, 23-2399, 23-1856, 24-1047
Case
Rasmussen Instruments, LLC v. DePuy Synthes Products, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by “disregarding the important distinctions” made by the parties’ agreement between the terms “inventions” and “know-how?” 2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred when it interpreted...
Appeal No.
23-1841
Case
Wash World Inc. v. Belanger Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this precedential panel decision imposes a new requirement that a district court consider all issues feasibly raised before it, including relief not explicitly requested until a party’s reply brief...
Appeal No.
23-1805
Case
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “the Panel decision announced an unprecedented an unsupported legal standard for adjudicating the scope of [inter partes reviews].” Whether “the Panel’s holding that IPR petitioners need not provide any ‘evidence...
Appeal No.
23-1801, 23-1802, 23-1803
Case
Converter Manufacturing, LLC v. Tekni-Plex, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether by summarily affirming the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’) under Fed. R. App. P. 36, this Court violated the Supreme Court’s mandate in...