“The questions presented are:”
1. “In a case of first impression for this Court, where a patentee expressly defines a claim term, may the Federal Circuit disregard its decades-old precedent that the patentee’s express definition governs?”
2. “Does a Federal Circuit ex post facto claim construction comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶¶ 1 and 2, and this Court’s precedent in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014), when a person of skill in the art could not have predicted the Federal Circuit’s claim construction with reasonable certainty?”
3. “Must the Federal Circuit, under Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015), credit a District Court’s underlying factual determinations in resolving conflicts arising from a patentee incorporating-by-reference multiple conflicting definitions of a patentee-coined claim term?”
