1. “Whether the district court erred by not granting a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of no anticipation (under 35 U.S.C. § 102) when the alleged public use and alleged public knowledge lacked legally required corroboration and sufficient evidence of the claims’ critical efficacy limitation.” 2. “Whether the district court erred by not granting a JMOL of nonobviousness (under 35 U.S.C. § 103) or a new trial when (a) none of the primary prior art references teach or suggest the ‘efficacy’ limitation, (b) Gilead relied on nonqualified, noncorroborated background art, and (c) the district court precluded the Government from introducing the PTO’s highly relevant evaluation of prior art in IPR proceedings.” 3. “Whether the district court erred by not granting a new trial given the improper admission of evidence regarding the Government’s alleged breach of material transfer agreements.” 4. “Whether the district court erred by not granting a JMOL of enablement (under 35 U.S.C. § 112) based on insubstantial evidence that ‘tenofovir prodrug’ was not enabled.”
