Whether “the panel err[ed] in failing to recognize that Lubby provided Chung a qualified charge of infringement at the time they ended their collaboration on the products claimed in the ‘284 patent, which is sufficient to provide actual notice of infringement to Chung under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and in erroneously conflating the standard for notice of infringement under Section 287 with an unqualified charge of infringement sufficient to confer declaratory judgment jurisdiction over Lubby, contrary to Minks v. Polaris and SRI v. Advanced Technology?”
Whether “the alleged infringer’s ‘burden of production’ under Arctic Cat require it to specifically allege which of the patentee’s products it believes practice the asserted patent and were sold in the United States unmarked and make a showing at trial with admissible evidence supporting the allegation? “
