1. “Whether the panel decision did not prove the devices accused in case2 are ‘essentially the same’ as the devices accused in case 1 with evidence of detail comparison and analysis as in case Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 525 F.3d 1319, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2008) and Whether the panel decision just merely stated ‘the devices accused in case2 are “essentially the same” as the devices accused in case 1.’” 2. “Whether the Panel decision ignored that Plaintiff-Appellant Mr. Huang argued clearly the difference between the devices accused in case 2 and the devices accused in case1 in . . . Mr. Huang’s amended informal brief (Dkt. 18 of case 19-1726).” 3. “Whether the District Court’s decision on case 1 and the panel decision of this court on case 1 is completely erroneous and an abuse of discretion and Law by denying the evidence produced by Mr. Huang and only based on Magistrate Judge Payne’s fraudulent statement and Huawei’s perjured declaration.” 4. “Whether the panel decision and the district court prejudiced pro se Mr. Huang and abused the discretion.” 5. “Whether the panel decision ignored that the district court may have interest conflicts in this case and has made error in evidence findings and denied the evidence presented by Plaintiff Mr. Huang.”
