NantKwest En Banc Oral Argument Today

This morning the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in NantKwest v. Matal.  I've blogged about this case a couple of times before, most recently in a post from last August:

The case is NantKwest Inc. v. Matal (available here).  As I explained in my blog post on the panel opinion from this past June:

The examiner and the PTAB rejected the inventor's patent application on nonobviousness grounds, and rather than immediately appealing to the Federal Circuit (which is one option under these circumstances) the applicant initiated a lawsuit against the director in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (which is another, less commonly invoked, option).  The district court ruled in favor of the director, and in May the Federal Circuit affirmed (here).  The district court also awarded the director expert witness fees but denied a request for attorney's fees. On appeal of this matter, the Federal Circuit (in an opinion by Chief Judge Prost) concludes that the relevant statute--which in the present context is not 35 U.S.C. § 285, but rather 35 U.S.C. § 145--requires the court to award both expert and attorneys' fees--and, although it isn't at issue in this case, since the director won--the rule applies regardless of outcome.

The per curiam order issued this morning states:

This case was argued before a panel of three judges on February 9, 2017. A sua sponte request for a poll on whether to reconsider this case was made. A poll was conducted and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service voted for sua sponte en banc consideration.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The panel opinion of June 23, 2017 is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated.

(2) This case will be heard en banc sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 46 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a). The court en banc shall consist of all circuit judges in regular active service who are not recused or disqualified.

(3) The parties are requested to file new briefs. The briefs should address the following issue:

Did the panel in NantKwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) correctly determine that 35 U.S.C. § 145’s “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings” provision authorizes an award of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s attorneys’ fees? . . .

I'll post the audio of the oral argument when it becomes available.  To be honest, though, I haven't gotten terribly excited about this case--though I'm sure its resolution is important to the parties, I suspect that the number of § 145 cases filed every year is quite small, so whatever the result is its systemic effect will be pretty limited.  For what it's worth, I'm inclined to think the en banc court will reverse the panel, though again I haven't read the briefs or otherwise immersed myself in considering the question presented.  For a discussion of the various briefs, see this January post from Patently-O.

Update:  Here's the audio of today's oral argument.