1. Whether “the petitioner failed to address a claim limitation—in any manner—in its petition for inter partes review.”
2. Whether “the petitioner did not prove—or even argue—that a claim limitation is materially different from limitations found in other claims and discussed elsewhere in the petition for inter partes review.”
3. Whether “the petitioner failed to meet its burden in its petition for inter partes review, to present a clear argument and identify with particularity the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.”
4. Whether the panel’s decision applies “the unrebutted presumption that different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.”
5. Whether the panel’s decision “shifts the burden to the patent owner to prove that different claim terms have different meanings and excuses the failure of the petitioner below to rebut the presumption.”
6. Whether the panel’s decision “allowed the petitioner below to present forfeited arguments not raised to the PTAB in its petition for inter partes review for the first time on appeal.”
