Question presented by appellants-intervenors CJ CheilJedang Corp.: Whether “[t]he majority’s decision and the Hospira panel’s decision endorse ‘prosecution-remorse’ arguments that eviscerate the bedrock principles and purposes of PHE.”
Questions presented by Ajinomoto Co., Inc. and Ajinomoto Heartland Inc.: 1. Whether “the Panel violated the fundamental principle that claims are to be construed from the perspective of an ordinary artisan in the field of invention—here, the complex field of genetic engineering.” 2. Whether “the Panel failed to understand the distinction between genetic ‘alterations’ (original claim language) and genetic ‘replacements’ (amended claim language) in the context of the invention and prosecution history.” 3. Whether “the Panel ignored the well-settled principle that claims should not be limited to a specific example.”
