Source: https://fedcircuitblog.co/en-banc/cases/
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 06:36:11
Document Index: 635310665

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1116', '§ 315', '§ 145', '§ 102', '§ 1052', '§ 271', '§ 1337', '§ 1292']

"[W]hether it is within [the United States Customs and Border Protection]’s authority to preliminarily suspend liquidation of goods based on an ambiguous antidumping or countervailing duty order, such that the...
"Since 2009, we have held that the Board and Veterans Court properly apply a presumption of competency in reviewing the opinions of VA medical examiners. See Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580...
"Does the phrase 'served in the Republic of Vietnam' in 38 U.S.C. § 1116 unambiguously include service in offshore waters within the legally recognized territorial limits of the Republic of...
"[W]hether 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)'s time bar applies to bar institution when an IPR petitioner was served with a complaint for patent infringement more than one year before filing its...
“When the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (‘Board’) affirms an examiner’s rejection of a patent application, § 145 of the Patent Act permits the...
"Congress has prohibited the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office from instituting inter partes review if the petition requesting that review is filed more than one year...
Parkinson v. Dep't of Justice
"Lt. Col. John C. Parkinson appeals from a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board sustaining his removal from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A panel of this court...
"In this appeal, we consider the proper allocation of the burden of proof when amended claims are proffered during inter partes review proceedings ('IPRs') under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ('AIA')."
“On February 26, 2016, a panel of this court reversed the denial of JMOL with regard to the jury verdict of infringement as to the ’647 patent and non-obviousness as...
"Today, we consider the circumstances under which a product produced pursuant to the claims of a product-by-process patent is 'on sale' under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This is important because,...
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc.
"We decided to hear this case en banc to consider whether two decisions of this court concerning the uncodified doctrine of patent exhaustion—one decision from 1992, the other from 2001—remain...
"Does the bar on registration of disparaging marks in 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) violate the First Amendment?"
"We convene en banc to resolve whether, in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), laches remains a defense to...
"This case was returned to us by the United States Supreme Court, noting 'the possibility that [we] erred by too narrowly circumscribing the scope of § 271(a)' and suggesting that...
"Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1337 ('Section 337'), declares certain acts unlawful. Among them is importing 'articles that . . . infringe...
"Our opinions in Lighting World, Inventio, Flo Healthcare and Apple have . . . established a heightened bar to overcoming the presumption that a limitation expressed in functional language without...
"The only questions presented for decision are whether Mr. Shadadpuri is a ‘person’ covered by [19 U.S.C. §] 1592(a)(1)(A) and whether his actions come within the ‘enter, introduce, or attempt...
"This court undertook rehearing en banc for the purpose of reconsidering the standard of appellate review of claim construction."
Does the Supreme Court's decision in Dept. of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), limit Merit System Protection Board review only to actions involving security clearance determinations, i.e., "determinations concerning...
"We sua sponte took this case en banc to answer two questions. First, does 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) confer jurisdiction on this court to entertain appeals from patent infringement liability...