1. ”Whether the Commission erred in concluding that Masimo established an existing domestic industry, including by:” a. “holding Masimo satisfied the technical prong, even though the item identified in the complaint as the purported ‘article’ admittedly never existed and the Commission’s decision relied on cobbled together circumstantial evidence to find that Masimo somehow possessed a patent-practicing ‘article,’ and” b. “holding Masimo satisfied the economic prong, even though Masimo concededly relied on investments made in several items that admittedly do not practice the patents at issue—and even as to the items relied upon, offered only rank speculation and made-for-litigation spreadsheets.” 2. “Whether the Commission erred in concluding the five remaining patent claims (out of 103 originally-asserted) were not invalid, including by” a. “with regards to obviousness, requiring Apple to show that the relevant prior art disclosed/enabled more than the patents themselves, and disregarding KSR’s ordinary creativity standard, and” b. “with regard to written description, endorsing precisely the kind of post-hoc mixing-and-matching of unrelated elements that this Court has rejected.” 3. “Whether the Commission erred in concluding the accused products infringed the five remaining claims, where the Commission’s ruling rested on clam constructions of terms like ‘over,’ ‘above,’ and ‘through’ that flout their plain meanings.” 4. “Whether the Commission erred in rejecting Apple’s prosecution laches defense, where Masimo strategically waited over a decade to submit its continuation applications and only did so after Apple invested immense resources to develop the accused products.”
