1. “Whether under the doctrine of repair as applied to design patents the article of manufacture being repaired is determined by an embodiment test similar to that used for method patents . . . by a claiming test similar to that used for utility patents, or by some other test, and whether the Panel decision conflicts with the general patent exhaustion principles expressed in Impression Products, Inc v. Lexmark International, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017).” 2. “Whether in the case of repair/replacement parts, the ornamentality requirement for design patents is determined by the doctrine of complementary functionality, . . . including whether complementary appearance is a factor to be considered.” 3. “In light of the different and conflicting standards for functionality . . . and this Court’s panel opinion, what is the proper test for the ornamentality requirement in design patents, and in particular, how does the alternative design test interact with the Berry Sterling factors and other factors used to determine functionality?”
