1. Whether the “panel opinion’s sua sponte forfeiture holding (a) conflicts with this Court’s settled standards that unchanged proposed claim-constructions are preserved regardless of supporting arguments; and (b) erroneously held that Biofer’s ‘brief excursions’ argument was new, overlooking that the argument was presented to the district court, explicitly referred to in the appealed Markman Order, preserved in the stipulated judgment, and developed throughout appellate briefing.”
2. Whether the panel opinion “conflicts with this Court’s settled standards for interpreting ‘comprising’ claims and prohibiting importing such limitations” when the panel opinion “imported limitations into a claim for which there was no suggestion of lexicography or disavowal, and broad, repeated disclosures of preferred embodiments that lacked the limitations.”
3. Whether “[t]he panel opinion’s declining to review the hypochlorite term construction that was fully briefed and decided below results in a waste of judicial resources and converts a party’s declaration in a stipulated judgment that it does not infringe because of it, and a counter-assertion disputing that noninfringement contention and reserving appeal, into a nullity, without due consideration of whether the dispute bears on the controversy that will proceed on any remand.”
