Case Name: CASCADES PROJECTION LLC, Appellant v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., Sony Corporation, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 864 F.3d 1309
Docket Number: 2017-1517, 2017-1518
Parties: CASCADES PROJECTION LLC, Appellant v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., Sony Corporation, Appellees
Judges: Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, ' TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 864
Pages: 1309–1326

Head Matter:
CASCADES PROJECTION LLC, Appellant v. EPSON AMERICA, INC., Sony Corporation, Appellees
2017-1517, 2017-1518
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
May 11, 2017
Philip P. Mann, Mann Law Group, Seattle, WA, filed a petition for hearing en banc for appellant. Also. • represented by Robert Greenspoon, Flaehsbart & Green-spoon, LLC, Chicago, IL.
■ David J. Ball, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for appellee Epson America, Inc. Also represented by Nicholas P. Groombridge, Jenny Chía Cheng Wu, New York, NY.
Kevin P.B. Johnson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, filed a response to the petition for appellee Sony Corporation. Also represented by Andrew J. Bramhall; Matthew A. Smith, Turner Boyd LLP, Redwood City, CA.
Andrew John Dhuey, Berkeley, CA, for amici curiae Daniel R. Cahoy, Eric R. Claeys, Gregory Dolin, James W. Ely, .Jr., Richard A. Epstein, Matthew P. Harrington, Ryan Holte, Irina D. Manta, Adam Mossoff, Sean M. O’Connor, Kristen J. Osenga, Mark Schultz, Peter K. Yu.
Frear Stephen Schmid, San Francisco, CA, for amici curiae Security People Inc., Edison Innovators Association, Independent Inventors of America, Inventors Network of the Capital Area, Inventors Network of the Carolinas, Inventors Network of Minnesota, Inventors’ Roundtable, Inventors Society of South Florida, Music City Inventors, National Innovation Association, San Diego Inventors Forum, South Coast Inventors, Tampa Bay Inventors Council, US Inventor, Inc.
Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, ' TARANTO, CHEN, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge,
concurs in the denial of the petition for initial hearing en banc.
DYK, Circuit Judge, with whom, PROST, Chief Judge, and HUGHES, Circuit Judge, join, concurs in the denial of the petition for initial hearing en banc.
O'MALLEY, Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for initial hearing en banc.
REYNA,.Circuit Judge, dissents from the denial of the petition for initial hearing en,banc.
ON PETITION FOR HEARING EN banc
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Appellant Cascades Projection LLC filed a petition for hearing en banc. A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed by appellees Epson America, Inc. and Sony Corporation. Appellant was also granted leave to file a reply in support of the petition.
The petition was referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service.
Upon consideration thereof,
It Is Ordered That:
The petition for hearing en banc is denied.
Newman, Circuit Judge, concurring in the denial of initial hearing en banc.
There is no doubt that a patent is a property right, with the attributes of personal property. This was resolved in 35 U.S.C. § 261 ("Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property . "). There is, of course, a public interest in the innovation incentive of the patent law, see, e.g., Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 604 (Fed. Cir. 1985), but that does not convert a private right into a public right. That is not the question presented by the current debate concerning the America Invents Act.
Because "the attributes of personal property" enjoyed by patents are "[s]ub- ject to the provisions of this title," the inquiry focuses on whether patent owners subject to post-grant procedures are afforded appropriate due process protections as the Patent Office ensures issued patents do indeed conform with the provisions of the Patent Act. The question, then, is whether the statutory scheme created by the America Invents Act, in which the Office is given an enlarged opportunity to correct its errors in granting a patent, with its decision subject to review by the Federal Circuit, meets the constitutional requirements of due process in disposition of property.
In view of the uncertainties illustrated in the present debate, I conclude that the matter should be resolved after full opportunity for panel consideration, and, as such, concur in the denial of initial en banc hearing. If necessary to properly resolve these uncertainties, however, resolution by the court en banc is appropriate.