| 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… |
| 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… |
| 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… |
| 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 |
| 21-202 |
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? |
| 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 |
| 20-314 |
RPM International Inc., et al. v. Alan Stuart, Trustee for the Cecil G. Stuart and Donna M. Stuart Revocable Living Trust Agreement, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-09-10 |
GVR |
Response RequestedRelisted (3) |
administrative-law administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-law judicial-procedure officer-status patent patent-trial-and-appeal-board standing us-constitution-article-ii |
Whether the court of appeals erred by vacating and remanding the case based on an Appointments Clause challenge |
| 20-271 |
Vilox Technologies, LLC v. Andre Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-09-02 |
Denied |
Relisted (2) |
administrative-judges administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause congressional-intent executive-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board severance-remedy tenure-protections |
Whether the court of appeals' severance remedy of the Appointments Clause violation of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) is consistent with congress… |
| 20-150 |
ThermoLife International LLC v. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2020-08-13 |
Denied |
|
administrative-patent-judges appellate-review appointments-clause chenery-doctrine constitutional-appointment patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers rehearing unconstitutional-appointments |
Whether the Federal Circuit violated the Chenery doctrine |
| 20-74 |
Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Eugene H. Luoma, et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-27 |
GVR |
Response WaivedRelisted (2) |
administrative-law america-invents-act enablement intellectual-property judicial-review obviousness patent-eligibility patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-validity prior-art written-description |
Whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's application of the statutory requirements for patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 was … |
| 19-1452 |
Smith & Nephew, Inc., et al. v. Arthrex, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-02 |
Judgment Issued |
Amici (1)Relisted (2) |
administrative-adjudicators administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause constitutional-interpretation federal-circuit inferior-officers lucia-v-sec patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers |
Whether administrative patent judges are 'principal' or 'inferior' Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause |
| 19-1451 |
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-07-02 |
Denied |
|
administrative-law appointments-clause constitutional-challenge federal-circuit forfeiture ksr-international-co-v-teleflex-inc obviousness patent-act patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board pending-case separation-of-powers |
Whether a court can refuse to entertain a constitutional, separation-of-powers challenge based on an intervening change of law on the grounds of forfe… |
| 19-1124 |
Chrimar Systems, Inc., dba CMS Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Ale USA Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2020-03-13 |
Denied |
Amici (4)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (3) |
administrative-agency administrative-law administrative-review article-iii-court article-iii-courts article-iii-jurisdiction damages damages-judgment executive-branch-decision federal-circuit finality finality-standard patent-infringement patent-law-finality patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-validity standard-of-review |
Whether the Federal Circuit may apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by this Court and all other circui… |
| 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 … |
| 19-966 |
Emerson Electric Co. v. SIPCO, LLC |
Federal Circuit |
2020-02-03 |
GVR |
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) |
35-usc-101 35-usc-103 35-usc-324 administrative-law america-invents-act cbm-patent covered-business-method judicial-review patent patent-review patent-trial-and-appeal-board statutory-interpretation |
Whether 35 U.S.C. 324(e) permits review on appeal of the Director's threshold determination, as part of the decision to institute CBM review, that the… |
| 18-1418 |
Senju Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., et al. v. Akorn, Inc. |
Federal Circuit |
2019-05-13 |
Denied |
|
35-usc-144 federal-circuit mandate non-obviousness obviousness-standard opinion patent-appeal patent-appeals patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board rule-36 statutory-interpretation |
Whether 35 U.S.C. § 144's directive that the Federal Circuit shall issue ... its mandate and opinion' in all appeals from the Patent and Trademark Off… |
| 18-1223 |
Mario Villena, et al. v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2019-03-20 |
Denied |
Amici (1) |
35-usc-101 35-usc-102-103 administrative-procedure-act alice-mayo-test judicial-review patent-eligibility patent-examination patent-trial-and-appeal-board preemption section-101 statutory-interpretation uspto well-understood-routine-conventional |
Rejection of patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 without addressing each limitation separately and as an ordered combination, lack of substantial evid… |
| 18-1144 |
Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office |
Federal Circuit |
2019-03-05 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
administrative-law agency-deference agency-guidance federal-circuit intellectual-property judicial-review patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board patent-trial-and-appeals-board priority property-law property-rights trips |
Did the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit err in analyzing rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board |
| 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 |
| 18-599 |
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… |
| 18-314 |
Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-09-11 |
Denied |
Amici (1)Response Waived |
35-usc-144 appellate-review due-process federal-circuit judicial-procedure judicial-review mandamus patent-appeals patent-law patent-trial-and-appeal-board statutory-interpretation |
Whether the Federal Circuit's practice of routinely issuing judgments without opinions in appeals from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board violates 35 U… |
| 18-189 |
Smartflash LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., et al. |
Federal Circuit |
2018-08-14 |
Denied |
Response Waived |
35-usc-101 administrative-patent-judges appointments-clause covered-business-method-review due-process patent-eligibility patent-invalidation patent-trial-and-appeal-board principal-officers |
Whether Administrative Patent Judges are principal Officers under the Appointments Clause |
| 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 … |