Some pending en banc petitions before the Federal Circuit

In re Apple (level deference given on mandamus review of discretionary transfer decisions). [Uniloc Brief][Crouch’s prior post]

Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Proper venue for ANDA filing — what counts as having “has committed acts of infringement”). [ValeantANDAVenue][Crouch’s prior post]

C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc. (printed matter and eligibility). [BardPrintedMatter][Crouch’s prior post]

EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC  (automation & eligibility) [EcoWashingMachine][CAFC Decision]

GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (inducement and “skinny labels”) [GlaxoInducingSkinny][Crouch’s Prior Post]



5 thoughts on “Some pending en banc petitions before the Federal Circuit

  1. 2

    VoIP-Pal also has a pending en banc petition before the Federal Circuit which squarely raises the bitterly divisive 101/112 conflation question in American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. VoIP-Pal’s situation is much more egregious than even the American Axle case because the district court judge asked not one, not two, but DOZENS of disparate “how” questions, as a basis for ruling the claim ineligible under 101. The judge implied that all of these “how” questions needed to be addressed by the claims for the claims to satisfy 101. If the claims answered every question that a district judge could come up with, we wouldn’t need a specification, nor would we need a skilled person’s perspective.

  2. 1

    “We see patent cases! We see patent cases!” (exclaimed to the tune of “I see dead people!”)

    “And because we do, we deny all 5.”

    — SCOTUS

    1. 1.1

      Re the recently demonstrated decline in the percentage of the U.S. population interested in actual facts. While the above en banc requests are not yet Sup. Ct. cert petitions, even if they will become so after en banc denials, then as Dennis posted earlier, the legal study “Certiorari in Patent Cases,” 48:4 AIPLA Q.J. ___ (2020) of Prof. Christa Laser, November 11, 2020, is on point. It shows that: “In the decade from 2010 to 2019, the Supreme Court has decided more patent law cases than in the prior three decades combined. A higher percentage of its docket has been patent cases–5.45%–than in any decade in the last century.”

      1. 1.1.1


        Pro Say literally lives up to his name, so I think that your characterization does not quite fit.

        For example, I would take exception to your own choice of “facts,” and point out that you engage a bit of fallacy in terms of wanting a decade to decade statistic to go along with what is most likely Pro Say’s actual beef: that the Supreme Court does not take much of at all to FIX the mess that they have made in patent jurisprudence.

        Sure, they do take cases — but generally, those they take only end up mucking things up.

        That “higher interest” that you want to point to in a blanket manner should be parsed into its various types and THEN apply “facts.”

        As you are no doubt aware of Pro Say’s proclivities (unlike others who may not frequent these boards as a matter of course), your admonition comes across more than a little petulant and bully-ish.

        There’s a reason courts give some latitude to those that appear before them pro se.

        To your part, Pro Say, let’s spend a little more time constructing the point that you want to make. IF the Court were truly “run away from all patent cases,” we most likely would be better off today.

Comments are closed.