“Did the panel err in failing to recognize that liability for induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) can be based on foreign activity, and that Polymetrix’s ownership of the newly installed plant equipment in Poland during the commissioning period makes Polymetrix the owner of the PET made by such equipment under Swedish law governing the contract, where Alpek/DAK presented unrebutted declaration evidence from a Swedish law expert, the infringing PET was imported into the U.S. during the commissioning period, and Polymetrix ratified such infringing conduct under the contract?”
“Did the panel err in holding—without any supporting authority—that party and non-party corporate testimony should be treated differently for purposes of Fed. R. Evid. 602’s personal knowledge requirement, where the Eighth Circuit in General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd., 703 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2013) made no such distinction?”
