Patent Law

Federal Circuit En Banc Patent Decisions

By Jason Rantanen

By Jason Rantanen

A few weeks ago a commenter asked about a list of Federal Circuit en banc patent law decisions.  Despite the seeming importance of such a list, I was unable to find one through either online searching or consulting my favorite treatises.  After sorting through several sources, however, I was able to assemble the following list.  While a handful of the opinions are of limited substance, the bulk of the list consists of seminal patent rulings.  Note that this is only a first pass, and any corrections are welcome.

1. Hyatt v. Kappos, 625 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010 (en banc)
2. Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 616 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
3. Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)
4. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
5. Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc)
6. Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc)
7. In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
8. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc)
9. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360 ( Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)
10. DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc in part)
11. SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 453 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc)
12. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc);
13. Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc)
14. Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc)
15. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (en banc)
16. Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Serv. Co., 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc)
17. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 234 F.3d 558 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (en banc)
18. Midwest Indus., Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (en banc)
19. Nobelpharma Ab v. Implant Innovations, 141 F.3d 1059 (1998) (en banc in part)
20. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)
21. In re Zurko, 142 F.3d 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc)
22. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 114 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (en banc)
23. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)
24. In re Trovato, 60 F.3d 807 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)
25. Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)
26. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)
27. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)
28. In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc)
29. A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc)
30. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc)
31. Beatrice Foods Co. v. New England Printing & Lithographing Co., 899 F.2d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc)
32. Aerojet-Gen. Corp. v. Mach. Tool Works,  Oerlikon-Buehrle Ltd., 895 F.2d 736 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc)
33. Racing Strollers, Inc. v. TRI Indus., Inc., 878 F.2d 1418 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (en banc)
34. Gavin v. Star Brite Corp.,865 F.2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (nonprecedential)
35. Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc)
36. In re Roberts, 846 F.2d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc)
37. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc)
38. Woodard v. Sage Prods., Inc., 818 F.2d 841 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (en banc)
39. Wyden v. Comm'r of Patents & Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (en banc)
40. SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
41. In re Bennett, 766 F.2d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
42. Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
43. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc)
44. Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 747 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc)
45. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

Sources: Chisum on Patents; Lee Petherbridge, "Patent Law Uniformity," 22 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 421 (2009); WESTLAW.  Those interested in further reading on en banc Federal Circuit decisions may want to check out Christopher Cotropia's article "Determining Uniformity Within the Federal Circuit By Measuring Dissent and En Banc Review," 43 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 801 (2010).

Update: Shortly after publishing this post, I learned that Professor Ryan Vacca at the University of Arkon School of Law has drafted an article on the Federal Circuit's en banc practice, which he recently presented at the Missouri Law Review Symposium.  Professor Vacca argues that these practices make the court look much like that of an administrative agency engaging in substantive rulemaking, a role that he suggests is beneficial in shaping patent policy as a whole.  Along with the substantive analysis, the article includes an appendix listing the court's en banc decisions.  A draft of the piece, entitled "Acting Like an Administrative Agency: The Federal Circuit En Banc" is available on ssrn, and I recommend that anyone interested in the CAFC's en banc practices should take a look at it.

Full post as published by Patently Obvious on March 08, 2011 (boomark / email).