1. “Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment of patent eligibility, even though the inventor conceded that his invention is the black- box mathematical operation of optimizing a constellation for parallel decoding capacity, and no other limitations provide any inventive concept?” 2. “Whether the District Court erroneously denied judgment as a matter of law (‘JMOL’) of noninfringement, where Appellee Constellation Designs, LLC (‘Constellation’) relied solely on an industry standard (or purportedly related evidence) for at least one limitation in each asserted claim without ever proving that any asserted claim is standard essential?” 3. “Whether the District Court erroneously denied JMOL of noninfringement for accused products having a Realtek chip, where Constellation never obtained discovery from Realtek to show that this chip has the claimed demapper, decoder, likelihoods, and constellations?” 4. “Whether the District Court erroneously denied JMOL of no damages, where the accused products are multi-component products with numerous unaccused technologies, and Constellation’s damages expert supposedly relied on a built-in apportionment theory by using third-party Zenith’s licenses, involving distinct technology and distinct patents, that were executed 15 years before the hypothetical negotiation.”
