| 25-779 |
Bright Data Ltd. v. Code200, UAB, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2026-01-05 |
Pending |
Response Waived |
claim-construction inter-partes-review patent-claim-scope patent-disclaimer patent-prosecution trademark-office-proceedings |
When a patentee disclaims subject matter from the scope of its claims by written statements made at any time during U.S. Patent and Trademark Office p… |
| 25-308 |
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2025-09-16 |
Pending |
Amici (5)Response RequestedResponse Waived |
inter-partes-review patent-act patent-applications printed-publications prior-art statutory-interpretation |
Whether patent applications that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent's critical date are 'prior art * * * printed publications… |
| 25A14 |
Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2025-07-03 |
Presumed Complete |
|
america-invents-act critical-date inter-partes-review patent-challenge printed-publication prior-art |
Whether an abandoned patent application that was not publicly accessible before a patent's critical date can nonetheless qualify as 'prior art' under … |
| 24-548 |
Arbor Global Strategies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-11-15 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure-act agency-decision inter-partes-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board prosecutorial-function separation-of-functions |
Whether Section 554(d) prohibits the same Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel from instituting and deciding inter partes review because institution is… |
| 24A303 |
Arbor Global Strategies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-09-30 |
Presumed Complete |
|
administrative-procedure-act agency-adjudication inter-partes-review patent-invalidation patent-trial-and-appeal-board separation-of-powers |
Whether the Administrative Procedure Act prohibits a Patent Trial and Appeal Board panel from both instituting and deciding the merits of an inter par… |
| 24A208 |
ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-08-27 |
Presumed Complete |
|
administrative-adjudication inter-partes-review jury-trial patent-validity public-rights seventh-amendment |
Whether the Seventh Amendment requires patent validity challenges to be adjudicated by a jury rather than an administrative agency under the public ri… |
| 24A207 |
ParkerVision, Inc. v. TCL Industries Holdings Co., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-08-27 |
Presumed Complete |
|
administrative-adjudication inter-partes-review jury-trial patent-validity public-rights seventh-amendment |
Whether the Seventh Amendment requires patent validity challenges to be adjudicated by a jury rather than an administrative agency under the public ri… |
| 23-1349 |
Provisur Technologies, Inc. v. Weber, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-06-27 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
confidentiality federal-circuit inter-partes-review on-sale-bar patent-law patent-law-35-usc-311-b printed-publication prior-art public-accessibility |
Did the Federal Circuit err in holding that a product manual distributed with an on-sale product constitutes a printed publication that can be asserte… |
| 23-1298 |
United Therapeutics Corporation v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2024-06-12 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-law chevron chevron-deference civil-procedure inter-partes-review judicial-review patent patent-review standing statutory-interpretation |
Whether the IPR statute and SAS require the Federal Circuit to review de novo, or only for an abuse of discretion, the PTO's reliance on new grounds a… |
| 23-1093 |
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. v. Zachary Silbersher, et al. |
Ninth Circuit |
2024-04-08 |
Denied |
Amici (2)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
false-claims-act federal-administrative-hearing federal-report inter-partes-review public-disclosure-bar qui-tam |
Whether a relator can avoid the public disclosure bar by stitching together public disclosures |
| 23-804 |
Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2024-01-25 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-law federal-circuit induced-infringement inter-partes-review patent-infringement patent-validity preclusion preclusion-doctrine ptab statutory-framework |
Whether a party may be liable for induced patent infringement when the PTAB has already issued a final written decision determining that the same pate… |
| 23A565 |
Liquidia Technologies, Inc. v. United Therapeutics Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2023-12-19 |
Presumed Complete |
|
administrative-preclusion biotechnology-patents inter-partes-review issue-estoppel patent-infringement patent-validity |
Whether a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding patent claims unpatentable can serve as a defense to induced patent infringement befor… |
| 23-315 |
VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-09-27 |
Denied |
Amici (2)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
america-invents-act article-iii commissioner-for-patents director-review federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board statutory-time-limit |
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in upholding joinder of a party under 35 U.S.C. §315(c), where the joined party did not 'properly file[ ] a petition… |
| 23-135 |
Intel Corporation, et al. v. Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2023-08-15 |
Denied |
Amici (3) |
administrative-procedure-act agency-rulemaking inter-partes-review judicial-review patent patent-and-trademark-office patent-review statutory-interpretation |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes review of PTO rules setting standards governing IPR institution decisions |
| 22-1001 |
NST Global, LLC, dba SB Tactical v. Sig Sauer Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-04-14 |
Denied |
|
administrative-procedure administrative-procedure-act burden-of-proof due-process federal-circuit federal-circuit-rule-36 inter-partes-review patent-construction patent-preamble patent-validity |
Whether the Federal Circuit's affirmance of the PTAB's decision on preamble construction impermissibly shifts the burden to invalidate a patent from t… |
| 22-927 |
Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-03-23 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
35-usc-316 america-invents-act claim-construction inter-partes-review patent-holder patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board prior-art substitute-claims |
Whether, in inter partes review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may raise sua sponte a new ground of prior art that the petitioner neither cited no… |
| 22-925 |
Fall Line Patents, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, fka Unified Patents, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-03-22 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
acting-official acting-officials agency-delegation federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office patent-trial-and-appeal-board presidentially-appointed-senate-confirmed succession-plan |
Whether the Commissioner for Patents' exercise of the Director's authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Re… |
| 22-873 |
Ingenio, Inc., et al. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP |
Federal Circuit |
2023-03-13 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
america-invents-act estoppel federal-circuit inter-partes-review patent-law statutory-interpretation |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)'s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, even if other claims were or could… |
| 22-639 |
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2023-01-10 |
Denied |
Amici (3) |
acting-official agency-delegation director-review-authority federal-vacancies-reform-act inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office standing succession-plan |
Whether the Commissioner for Patents' exercise of the Director's authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Re… |
| 22-298 |
Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC, dba Rogue Fitness |
Federal Circuit |
2022-09-28 |
Denied |
Amici (5)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
collateral-estoppel federal-circuit inter-partes-review patent-infringement patent-law patent-validity preclusion-doctrine restatement-of-judgments |
Whether a PTAB determination of unpatentability has collateral estoppel effect on patent validity in district court |
| 22-203 |
Apple Inc., et al. v. California Institute of Technology |
Federal Circuit |
2022-09-07 |
Denied |
CVSGAmici (3)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3) |
administrative-procedure administrative-process civil-procedure federal-circuit inter-partes-review patent patent-law patent-validity standing statutory-interpretation |
Whether the Federal Circuit erroneously extended IPR-estoppel under 35-USC-315(e)(2) to all grounds that reasonably-could-have-been-raised in the peti… |
| 21-1527 |
CustomPlay, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2022-06-06 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure america-invents-act due-process inter-partes-review patent patent-law patent-rights patent-trial-and-appeal-board statutory-interpretation trademark |
Whether the PTO violated the AIA by delegating the Director's responsibility to the PTAB |
| 21-1327 |
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated |
Federal Circuit |
2022-04-05 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
article-iii article-three-standing inter-partes-review license-agreement medimmune patent-challenge patent-validity qualcomm-dispute standing |
Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that covers multiple patents |
| 21-7007 |
Amador Rodriguez v. Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division |
Fifth Circuit |
2022-01-28 |
Denied |
IFP |
administrative-law administrative-procedure-act fintiv-factors inter-partes-review patent-act patent-office |
Whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's use of the Fintiv factors to deny institution of inter partes review violates the Administrative Proced… |
| 21-888 |
Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-12-15 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
administrative-law agency-rule agency-rulemaking arbitrary-or-capricious federal-circuit inter-partes-review leahy-smith-act leahy-smith-america-invents-act notice-and-comment-rulemaking patent patent-review |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denyin… |
| 21-819 |
Baxter Corporation Englewood v. Becton, Dickinson and Company |
Federal Circuit |
2021-12-02 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-procedure administrative-procedure-act expert-testimony inter-partes-review ordinary-remand-rule patent patent-challenge prior-art remand-rule statutory-interpretation |
Whether the Federal Circuit's practice of allowing IPR petitioners to rely on evidence other than patents and printed publications to fill in gaps in … |
| 21-746 |
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated |
Federal Circuit |
2021-11-19 |
Denied |
CVSGAmici (5)Relisted (2) |
article-iii civil-procedure civil-rights due-process inter-partes-review license-agreement patent patent-challenge patent-validity standing takings |
Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license agreement that covers multiple patents |
| 21-202 |
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-08-12 |
Denied |
Amici (3)Relisted (2) |
35-usc-314 35-usc-315 administrative-law appellate-jurisdiction inter-partes-review judicial-review nhk-fintiv-rule patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-trial-and-appeals-board statutory-interpretation |
Does 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) categorically preclude appeal of all decisions not to institute inter partes review? |
| 21-118 |
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-07-28 |
Denied |
Amici (5)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-law agency-rulemaking federal-circuit inter-partes-review judicial-review leahy-smith-america-invents-act mandamus-petition patent patent-review uspto |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying … |
| 20-1700 |
Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-06-08 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
5th-amendment constitutional-challenge due-process federal-circuit federal-circuit-rule-36 inter-partes-review patent patent-review patent-validity retroactivity |
Does retroactive application of the inter partes review process violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutio… |
| 20-1380 |
Security People, Inc. v. Drew Hirshfeld, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2021-04-01 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
constitutional-challenge due-process federal-circuit fifth-amendment inter-partes-review jurisdiction patent patent-law retroactive-application vested-property |
Whether the retroactive application of inter partes review deprived Petitioner of its vested property in violation of the Due Process Clause |
| 20-1003 |
Christy, Inc. v. United States |
Federal Circuit |
2021-01-26 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
compensation government-fees inter-partes-review patent patent-exaction patent-invalidation post-grant-review private-property property-rights takings-clause |
When a duly-issued patent is invalidated through a post-grant review process (such as an IPR), must compensation be paid under the Takings Clause? |
| 20-779 |
Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2020-12-08 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-proceeding article-iii-standing article-three-standing fda-approval inter-partes-review joint-venture leahy-smith-america-invents-act patent-challenge patent-validity pharmaceutical-industry pharmaceutical-patent |
Did the Federal Circuit categorically and erroneously preclude redress for injured members of joint ventures in the pharmaceutical industry by only re… |
| 20-737 |
B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. C&D Zodiac, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-27 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure america-invents-act inter-partes-review obviousness patent-challenge patent-validity printed-publications prior-art statutory-interpretation |
Whether the Board has authority to consider unpatentability on a ground of obviousness that is not 'only on the basis of prior art consisting of paten… |
| 20-679 |
Micron Technology, Inc. v. North Star Innovations, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-17 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
appointments-clause inferior-officers inter-partes-review patent-and-trademark-office principal-officers standing |
Whether administrative patent judges are principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 20-675 |
Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-11-17 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
35-usc-311-312 35-usc-314 35-usc-318 administrative-law inter-partes-review judicial-review patent-invalidation patent-procedure patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board |
Whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may invalidate patent claims based on a ground not asserted by the petitioner |
| 20-424 |
IYM Technologies LLC v. RPX Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-10-02 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
appointments-clause arthrex constitutional-claim federal-circuit forfeiture inter-partes-review patent patent-law standing |
Whether a court of appeals can invoke forfeiture to refuse to address a constitutional claim in a pending appeal despite an intervening change in law |
| 20-260 |
Personal Audio, LLC v. CBS Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2020-09-01 |
Denied |
|
appointments-clause collateral-estoppel inter-partes-review patent-law reexamination-clause seventh-amendment waiver |
Must the collateral estoppel effect of an inter partes review be raised and litigated in the appeal of the inter partes review, rather than in the cou… |
| 20-228 |
ESIP Series 2, LLC v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2020-08-28 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause arbitrary-and-capricious art-iii-court due-process inter-partes-review patent statutory-jurisdiction thryv-precedent |
Whether Board decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, exceed the Board's statutory jurisdiction from the start, and are made by administrative pa… |
| 19-1475 |
Duke University v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-08 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-314 administrative-law administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause due-process forfeiture inter-partes-review patent patent-law standing statutory-interpretation |
Whether a court of appeals can invoke forfeiture to refuse to address an Appointments Clause violation in a pending appeal despite an intervening chan… |
| 19-1381 |
BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., fka MonoSol RX, LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2020-06-16 |
Denied |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-law administrative-law-review agency-discretion appellate-jurisdiction due-process federal-circuit inter-partes-review judicial-review mandate-implementation patent patent-office sas-institute |
Does the Judiciary have authority to review a Patent Office decision refusing to implement its mandate and this Court's precedent? |
| 19-1204 |
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-04-09 |
Denied |
|
administrative-law appointments-clause constitutional-challenge due-process fifth-amendment inter-partes-review patent-law patent-law-retroactivity patent-office retroactive-application retroactivity takings |
Whether the retroactive application of inter partes review to patents that were applied for before the America Invents Act violates the Fifth Amendmen… |
| 19-1097 |
Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-03-06 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
aia burden-of-proof due-process inter-partes-review patent patent-validity retroactive-legislation retroactivity takings vested-rights |
Does the application of inter partes review to a patent that issued before the enactment of the AIA violate the Due Process Clause because it retroact… |
| 19-1074 |
Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director, Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-03-02 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Relisted (3) |
administrative-review america-invents-act fifth-amendment inter-partes-review lucas-test patent-rights patent-rights-takings patent-trial-and-appeal-board patents penn-central-test property-rights takings takings-clause |
Whether retroactive application of inter partes review to patents issued before passage of the America Invents Act violates the Takings Clause of the … |
| 19-1012 |
General Electric Company v. Raytheon Technologies Corporation, fka United Technologies Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2020-02-14 |
Denied |
Amici (2) |
article-iii article-iii-standing civil-procedure civil-rights competition competitive-harm competitor-standing due-process inter-partes-review judicial-precedent patent patent-infringement patent-law standing |
Whether competitive harm alone suffices to confer Article III standing to appeal an IPR determination, or whether an appellant must also show concrete… |
| 19-829 |
Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-12-31 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure burden-of-proof due-process evidence inter-partes-review patent patent-challenge patent-law reply reply-evidence |
Did the Patent and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board violate 35-USC-312(a)(3) and 35-USC-316(a)(8) |
| 19-601 |
Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-11-07 |
Denied |
Relisted (4) |
5th-amendment america-invents-act due-process inter-partes-review leahy-smith-america-invents-act patent retroactive-application retroactivity takings-clause |
Does the retroactive application of inter partes review to a patent that issued before the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.… |
| 19-455 |
ARRIS International Limited v. ChanBond, LLC, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-10-07 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (3) |
35-usc-315 35-usc-315(b) administrative-law appellate-jurisdiction due-process estoppel inter-partes-review patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board-ptab time-bar |
Whether the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction to review a PTAB decision denying inter partes review |
| 19-337 |
Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-09-12 |
Denied |
Amici (3) |
administrative-proceeding civil-procedure federal-agency federal-circuit inter-partes-review patent patent-validity sovereign-immunity state-university university |
Whether the inter partes review proceedings brought by private respondents against the University of Minnesota in this case are barred by sovereign im… |
| 18-1075 |
RPX Corporation v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2019-02-19 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
35-usc-314 35-usc-315 administrative-law inter-partes-review judicial-review patent-office-decision patent-review patent-review-procedure statutory-interpretation timeliness timeliness-objection |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the Patent and Trademark Office's decision to institute inter partes review where a patent holder's… |
| 18-1027 |
Superior Communications, Inc. v. Voltstar Technologies, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-02-06 |
GVR |
Response RequestedRelisted (4) |
35-usc-314 35-usc-314d 35-usc-315 35-usc-315b administrative-law appealability inter-partes-review inter-partes-review-ipr patent-infringement patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-trial-and-appeal-board-ptab statutory-interpretation time-bar voluntary-dismissal |
Whether the PTAB's application of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)'s time-bar provision in its decision to institute IPR is appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and… |
| 18-999 |
Atlanta Gas Light Company v. Bennett Regulator Guards, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-01-31 |
GVR |
Amici (1)Relisted (3) |
35-usc-314 35-usc-315 administrative-procedure administrative-review america-invents-act dismissal-without-prejudice federal-circuit-jurisdiction inter-partes-review jurisdiction patent patent-law patent-review-procedure-35-usc-314-315 patent-trial-and-appeal-board standing time-bar |
Did the Federal Circuit err in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Board's decision to institute inter partes review |
| 18-916 |
Thryv, Inc., fka Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-01-15 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (18)Relisted (3) |
35-usc-314 35-usc-315 america-invents-act cuozzo inter-partes-review patent-infringement patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board ptab section-315b time-bar wi-fi-one |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB's decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that § 315(b)'s time bar did not app… |
| 18-899 |
Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-01-11 |
Denied |
|
administrative-law administrative-proceeding federal-circuit indian-tribe inter-partes-review patent-challenge patent-law patent-office patent-trial-and-appeal-board sovereign-immunity tribal-sovereign-immunity |
Whether inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is the type of proceeding in which tribal sovereign immunity may be asserted |
| 18-861 |
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation |
Federal Circuit |
2019-01-07 |
Denied |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
agency-procedure discovery due-process inter-partes-review patent-invalidation patent-litigation patent-office patent-office-procedures privy real-party-in-interest standing statutory-interpretation time-bar |
Whether the court of appeals and agency erred by holding that 'real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner' refers only to others who 'control'… |
| 18-750 |
JTEKT Corporation v. GKN Automotive Ltd. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-12-12 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Relisted (2) |
article-iii article-iii-standing estoppel injury-in-fact inter-partes-review patent patent-office-appeal patent-standing standing standing-article-iii-injury-in-fact-patent-office- statutory-interpretation statutory-rights |
Can the Federal Circuit refuse to hear an appeal by a petitioner from an adverse final decision in a Patent Office inter partes review on the basis of… |
| 18-599 |
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-11-07 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
35-usc-315b administrative-law administrative-procedure-act administrative-procedure-act-apa indemnity-agreements inter-partes-review inter-partes-review-ipr judicial-review patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-trial-and-appeal-board-ptab standard-of-review time-bar |
Whether the PTAB panel violated the Administrative Procedure Act by refusing to admit known indemnity agreements into evidence when deciding whether t… |
| 18-468 |
SSL Services, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-10-12 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
35-usc-325(d) administrative-law administrative-procedure estoppel inter-partes-review judicial-review patent-office patent-review patent-validity predictability prior-art statutory-interpretation |
Whether courts may review an agency's ruling on the multiple-proceedings rule under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) |
| 18-222 |
EMED Technologies Corporation v. Repro-Med Systems, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-08-21 |
Denied |
|
administrative-procedure claim-construction constitutional-amendment digital-claim due-process inter-partes-review patent patent-claim-construction patent-law-procedure review-procedure standard-of-review takings |
Whether the PTAB erred in applying the Texas-Digital claim construction standard rather than the Phillips standard |
| 18-190 |
Queen's University at Kingston v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-08-13 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-procedure-act burden-of-proof due-process enablement inter-partes-review patent-invalidity prior-art |
Does the Federal Circuit's requirement that patent owners negate enablement of prior art in the first instance invert the statutory burden of proving … |
| 18-183 |
Advanced Audio Devices, LLC v. HTC Corporation, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-08-09 |
Denied |
Amici (2)Response Waived |
5th-amendment aia america-invents-act constitutional-law due-process fifth-amendment inter-partes-review patent patent-law patents takings-clause |
Whether inter partes review (IPR) of patents filed before enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA") violates the Takings Clause of the … |
| 18-88 |
Richard Gramm v. Deere & Company |
Federal Circuit |
2018-07-18 |
GVR |
|
certiorari claim-construction claim-institution federal-circuit inter-partes-review patent patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board ptab sas-institute-v-iancu supreme-court-procedure |
Whether the Federal Circuit's decision affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's final written decisions of the partially instituted inter partes … |