1. “Whether, contrary to longstanding rules of judicial estoppel and law of the case, a party who obtains summary judgment that its product practices a patent limitation for purposes of anticipation may subsequently seek and obtain a judgment that the same product does not practice that limitation for purposes of infringement—in conflict with the legal and factual basis for the original summary judgment order.”
2. “Whether a court of appeals may properly affirm an inconsistent judgment without resolving the inconsistency by extracting agreement at oral argument that a non-appealing party will seek to vacate a portion of the district court’s judgment in its favor.”
