1. “Whether the asserted claims are invalid because: (1) They were anticipated by the prior art; or (2)They are not enabled and lack sufficient written description.”
2. “Whether the asserted claims are not infringed because: (1) The steps of the method, properly construed, were not practiced in this country during the patent term; or (2) Serono lacked the scienter required for indirect infringement.”
3. “Whether the asserted claims are ineligible for patenting.”
“Because a reasonable jury could find the claims of the ’755 patent anticipated on the record presented in this case, we reverse the district court’s JMOL of no anticipation and its conditional grant of new trial on that ground. We remand with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict of anticipation. We need not and do not address the other grounds asserted on appeal.”
