Home
Opinions
En Banc
Supreme Court
Other Cases
Administration
All Posts
Opinion Posts
News
SCOTUS Activity
En Banc Activity
Panel Activity
Search
All
Posts
Opinions
En Banc Cases
En Banc Petitions
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Petitions
Other Cases
Search
|
Sitemap
Contact
Sign Up
Home
Opinions
En Banc
Cases
Petitions
Supreme Court
Cases
Petitions
Other Cases
Administration
En Banc Petitions
Search By
Status
Any
Pending
Moot
Granted
Denied
Withdrawn
Subject
Any
Asbestos
Antitrust
Attorney Client Privilege
Attorney Fees
Bankruptcy
Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
Clean Water Act
Contract
Compensation Clause
Complaint of Judicial Misconduct
Copyright
Death Benefit
Disqualification
EAJA
Eminent Domain
Employment
Equal Pay Act
Errata
Fair Labor Standards Act
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Financial
Foreign Relations Authorization Act
Gov. Contract
Indian Tucker Act
IRS
Jurisdiction
Lanham Act
Little Tucker Act
Military
MSPB
Nuclear Waste
Order
Patent
Patent and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act
Plant Variety Protection Act
Postal
Procedure
Pro Se
Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act
Randolph-Sheppard Act
Rule 36
Rule 50
Sanctions
Standing
Takings
Tax
Tucker Act
Trade
Trademark
Trade Secret
Vaccine
Vaccine Act
Veterans
345 Petitions
Appeal No.
Case
Subject
Status
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
22-1216, 22-1217, 22-1218
Case
Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(A)(4) to hear a direct appeal from a final agency action by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial...
Appeal No.
22-1200, 22-2223
Case
Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does the ‘objectively baseless’ standard in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014), permit fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. §285 for an entire case during...
Appeal No.
22-1196
Case
Golden v. United States
Subject
Pro Se
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Appeal No.
22-1193
Case
IPA Technologies Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “[t]he panel decision affirming the district court’s determination that claim language stating a request must be ‘formed according to’ (or ‘in’ or ‘adhering to’) a language imposes: (1) the...
Appeal No.
22-1145
Case
Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd. v. P3 International Corp.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether a party seeking an exceptional case determination can be faulted for seeking an award of its attorney fees early in and throughout the case, and that conduct weighed against...
Appeal No.
22-1136, 22-1186
Case
C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medical Components, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
Whether “Bard’s asserted claims were eligible after the district court assumed Bard’s proposed construction for purposes of summary judgment under § 101.”
Appeal No.
22-1127
Case
KEYnetik, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an obviousness determination can be sustained as legally sufficient based solely on a statement describing a modification to prior art, as already described in the invention itself, as ‘simple’...
Appeal No.
22-1125, 22-1141
Case
XR Communications, LLC v. Arris Solutions, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether means-plus-function treatment applies to a claim term that (a) does not recite ‘means,’ (b) is not a nonce term, and (c) is a known term in the art...
Appeal No.
22-1116
Case
ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“May a claim that includes an isolated natural substance in a treatment formulation be denied patent eligibility on summary judgment when there are disputed fact issues as to whether the...
Appeal No.
22-1111
Case
Ethicon LLC v. International Trade Commission
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. Whether “[t]he panel misapprehended the intrinsic evidence to find that the specification ‘make[s] clear’ that a redundant construction is correct.” 2. Whether “the panel’s decision is contrary to at least...
Appeal No.
22-1058
Case
Roku, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether this Court may terminate its review of a lower tribunal’s obviousness analysis upon determining only that certain factual findings undergirding the analysis are supported by substantial evidence (as the...
Appeal No.
22-1027, 22-1028
Case
CareDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Amicus
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether an improvement on a human-made method is patent eligible at Alice step one, when the claimed advance is also human-made?” “Whether an improvement upon a human-made method is patent eligible...
Appeal No.
22-1016
Case
Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Ingenio, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Whether 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, as consistent with the holdings in Shaw, and Intuitive Surgical, and whether...
Appeal No.
21-2369
Case
Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Does the Erie doctrine require this Court to apply state substantive law when deciding an issue of contract interpretation under state law, including a state contract law principle that there...
Appeal No.
21-2356, 21-2358, 21-2361, 21-2363, 21-2365
Case
Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.A.R.L.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Where an invention’s intended purpose is to provide an ‘improvement’ or ‘increase’ in benefits over prior designs, whether the patentee can demonstrate the invention works for that purpose without...
Appeal No.
21-2349
Case
Infernal Technology, LLC v. Activision Blizzard Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“An open-ended claim term, such one using the term ‘at least,’ includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the specified items of data, and may or may...
Appeal No.
21-2320, 21-2376
Case
Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether the Court should expand what has been an extremely limited exception to the well-established general rule of claim construction, that indefinite articles ‘a’ or ‘an’ mean ‘one or...
Appeal No.
21-2299, 21-2338
Case
Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“Did the panel err in limiting comparison prior art used for design patent infringement analysis by (1) permitting consideration of functional and (2) importing the anticipation standard?”
Appeal No.
21-2296, 21-2297, 22-1070
Case
Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
1. “Whether this Court may presume a district court considered and rejected issues and evidence presented, where the district court failed to address them and failed to provide sufficient detail...
Appeal No.
21-2275
Case
Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple Inc.
Subject
Patent
Status
Denied
Question(s) Presented
“May a court declare a patent unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches based on actions an applicant took in compliance with an examination agreement reached with the PTO?” “Must prosecution...
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10