1. “Should this Court address the procedural unfairness at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board—the reason obviousness, rather than anticipation, accounts for almost 90% of the grounds on which the Board finds claims unpatentable?”
2. “May patent rights be extinguished based upon proceedings that fail to provide adequate notice of any specific ground of invalidity, such as petitions that misleadingly state between 70 and 100 times noncommittal alternative language that invokes countless separate theories of invalidity (e.g., a POSITA would have either ‘recognized or found obvious’ or ‘understood or found obvious’ claim elements and sub-elements)?”
3. “Should secondary considerations be reduced to a near nullity by affirming a decision that strained to ignore one of the clearest and most applicable sets of secondary considerations ever put on record: showing that the prior art covering Microsoft’s Active Desktop, which Bill Gates admitted failed to solve a long-felt need after it was released, could never have rendered obvious patent claims that the public recognized did solve that long-felt need and that led directly to hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial success?”
4. “Should this Court correct inconsistent claim construction positions reached on the same terms in the same patents? In Lenovo Holding Co. v DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC, Nos. 2021-1247, 2021-1521, 2021-1580, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36126, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2021), this Court stated that the NIMs were ‘applications’ and that configurability is determined from the developer’s point of view. However, the panel affirmed invalidity in this latest appeal on the grounds that NIMs are mere linear boundaries and that configurability can be decided from the user’s point of view (e.g., the ability to move a box around, which has always been possible in Windows).”
