En Banc Review

News & Analysis as of

Seventh Circuit to Re-Hear Case Determining Whether Sexual Orientation Discrimination is Covered By Title VII

Seyfarth Synopsis: A Seventh Circuit panel’s ruling that Title VII does not cover claims of sexual orientation discrimination will be heard en banc by the Circuit. Whether an en banc ruling affirms or reverses the panel’s...more

Third Circuit affirms class certification in franchisee-as-employee class action

In a recent sharply divided 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of class certification against commercial cleaning franchisor Jani-King in a lawsuit alleging that Jani-King’s franchisees were...more

Does the Recent Fifth Circuit En Banc Opinion Revitalize Class Actions?

The Fifth Circuit recently reversed a published panel opinion (805 F.3d 145) and affirmed a trial court’s certification of a class of individuals who paid money to become sales representatives in what is alleged to be a...more

Seventh Circuit to Reconsider Title VII Prohibition of Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, has vacated the July 28, 2016, decision of a Seventh Circuit three-judge panel holding that sexual orientation discrimination is not sex discrimination under...more

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Internal Fight Over Role of Appellate Court Reveals Substantial Difference of Opinion over Substantial Evidence at Federal Circuit

In Apple, Inc., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Inc., [2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994] (October 7, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit completely undid the panel decision with respect to three patents, with the three original...more

Coming Up Short: When There Aren't Enough Judges Eligible To Rehear A Case En Banc

Every now and then we see something in the reported decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that seems noteworthy because we’ve never seen it before. The following is one such example. Seventh...more

Ninth Circuit Could Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Standard for Federal Trademark Litigation

In Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014), the Supreme Court changed the standard for recovering attorneys’ fees in patent litigation. Rejecting a “rigid and mechanical formulation,” the Court adopted a looser...more

Federal Circuit Will Review PTAB Rules for Claim Amendments in AIA Reviews

The full US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an order granting en banc review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s or Board’s) rules governing amendments filed in the course of America Invents Act...more

A Second Chance for a Motion to Amend

On Tuesday, August 30, the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s denial of a motion to amend. Veritas Techs. LLC v. Veeam Software Corp., Case No. 15-1894. The Federal Circuit found that “the Board was...more

Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Review Of Amendment In AIA Trials

Successful motions to amend in AIA trials continue to be rare. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board conducted and published a Motion to Amend Study this year: as of April 30, 2016, the Board had completed 1539 trials; 192 of...more

Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Review of PTAB Amendment Practice

On August 12, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc to appellants in In re Aqua Products, Inc to consider the procedures used by the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to...more

Intellectual Property Newsletter -August 2016

Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a number of current IP topics, including a look at the America Invents Act, five years in; the U.S. International Trade...more

En Banc Federal Circuit To Review Standards for Amending Claims During AIA Proceedings

In a rare grant of a petition for rehearing en banc, the court decided that an appeal “warrants en banc consideration” of who bears what burden when amending in an IPR. In re: Aqua Products, No. 15-1177, slip op. at 2 (Fed....more

Federal Circuit Going En Banc on IPR Standards for Amending

The Federal Circuit has granted rehearing en banc in In re Aqua Products, Inc. to address two issues related to amending claims in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board: (a) When the...more

Taking a Walk Back to a Kinder, Gentler Interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

We don’t usually talk about four-year-old court decisions in the first instance here. But the Ninth Circuit has issued a pair of noteworthy opinions interpreting the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in the last few weeks. And...more

En Banc CAFC Requires UCC Sale For On Sale Bar

In an en banc decision issued in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., the Federal Circuit determined that in order for a commercial transaction to trigger the on-sale bar of § 35 USC 102(b), it must “bear the general...more

Sale of Manufacturing Services Does Not Trigger On Sale Bar Under Pre-AIA §102

In The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., [2014-1469, 2014,1504] (July 11, 2016), the en banc Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343 were invalid under the on-sale bar...more

Federal Circuit Helps Clarify What Constitutes a Commercial Sale under Pfaff

In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira Inc., Appeal No. 2014-1469 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2016), the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous en banc decision ruling that the on-sale bar was not triggered by a supplier’s sale of manufacturing...more

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On When An Agreement For Services Triggers The On-Sale Bar

On July 11, 2016, the Federal Circuit, en banc, overruled the merits panel and affirmed the District of Delaware’s decision in The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc. finding that an assignee’s entry into a manufacturing...more

En Banc Federal Circuit Rules A Product Must be the Subject of a Commercial Sale or Offer for Sale to Trigger On-Sale Bar

On July 11, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in a unanimous en banc decision in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira Inc., Federal Circuit case number 2014-1469, that to be “on sale” under pre-AIA 35...more

En Banc: Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Application of On-Sale Bar to Contract Manufacturers

Pharmaceutical and biotech companies breathed a sigh of relief Monday when the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in a precedential opinion that the mere sale of manufacturing services to create embodiments of a patented...more

For Purposes of an On-Sale Bar, Sale of Manufacturing Services by a Contract Manufacturer Does Not Necessarily Constitute a...

On July 11, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2014-1469. The decision was by the Federal Circuit sitting en banc (the entire court),...more

No Sale: Unanimous Federal Circuit Says “Commercial Sale,” Not “Commercial Benefit,” Applies to the Patent Act’s On-Sale Bar for...

On July 11, 2016, in The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc. (Case Nos. 2014-1469, -1504), the en banc Federal Circuit unanimously concluded that “to be ‘on sale’ under § 102(b), a product must be the subject of a commercial sale...more

278 Results
View per page
Page: of 12
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.