1. “Should controlling Federal Circuit cases (Phillips, Johnson Worldwide, Renishaw supra, (and cases cited in those cases) that govern claim interpretation, be enforced, so that the Panel decision here will comply with these cases, to prevent a court from improperly adding words to asserted claims–contrary to these controlling cases–and then granting summary judgment of noninfringement, because (as happened here) the improperly added words were held to prevent the asserted claims from reading on the infringer’s apparatus.”
2. “Should this Circuit enforce its own controlling cases governing summary judgment, including Uniloc, Frolow, and Pfaff, supra (plus the cases those decisions cite), to reverse the Panel decision, so that: (1) Uniloc and Frolow, supra, are followed, so that admissions by the movant preclude granting summary judgment; (2) Brilliant, supra, is followed, so that a detailed, uncontroverted, expert declaration opposing summary judgment, establishing infringement, precludes granting summary judgment; and (3) Pfaff, supra, is followed, so that resolving disputed issues of fact is done at trial, not on MSJ.”
3. “Should controlling SCOTUS cases governing summary judgment (the trilogy, and their progeny, supra) be enforced in the Federal Circuit, to achieve compliance with these controlling SCOTUS decisions, so that, on MSJ, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to non-movant, and weighing evidence requires a trial.”
