1. “Whether summary judgment on Teradata’s tying claim should be reversed because the district court erroneously (a) excluded testimony from Teradata’s expert economist; (b) refused to apply the per se rule governing tying claims; (c) relied on a late-filed declaration on the tie’s purported procompetitive benefits; and/or (d) disregarded material factual disputes.”
2. “Whether summary judgment on Teradata’s trade-secret claim should be reversed because the court misconstrued the parties’ agreements and resolved material factual disputes.”
“Having concluded that SAP’s patent-infringement claims are not compulsory counterclaims in this case, we hold that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which instead belongs in the Ninth Circuit. Because it is plainly in the interest of justice to transfer the appeal to the Ninth Circuit, we do so under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. The appeal, based on the Rule 54(b) judgment, involves only (a subset of) Teradata’s claims, not SAP’s patent-law counterclaims.”
