1. “Whether the Court failed to take into account the fact that Mr. Huang’s infringement contention clearly stated WHERE and HOW Nephos Inc. (MediaTeK USA) infringed the claims of the asserted patents when the accused device contains the TCAM which use[s], contain[s] and include[s] the figures of the asserted patents and the claim of the asserted patents read the corresponding figures of the patents and further read the TCAM and the accused devices.” 2. “Whether this Court use[d] defendant’s fraud statement which Defendant never presented in the trial Court that Nephos (Hefei) Co., Ltd is a different company from Nephos, Inc. while the two company share the same email address info@nephosinc.com and Nephos (Hefei) Co., Ltd is a child company & part of Nephos, Inc. to deny Plaintiff’s appeal for rule 11 sanction against Defendant.” 3. “Whether this Court’s decision that Nephos, Inc. as a parent company and Nephos (Hefei)Co. Ltd as a child subsidiary company is a[n] unrelated different company is related to the resolution of case 1:18-cr-00457-AMD because the two cases are all related whether the parent company and the child subsidiary company are unrelated different compan[ies].”
