Whether “the panel’s ruling that the alleged prior inventors had to appreciate the limitations of the claimed invention to establish invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) required vacatur of the ITC decision because the ALJ made no finding that they had the requisite appreciation and the trial evidence on this point was conflicting.”
Whether “the panel decision is contrary to [Securities Exchange Commission v.Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947)] and this Court’s precedents applying the Chenery doctrine—including in ITC cases. See, e.g., InterDigital Commc’ns, LLC v. ITC, 690 F.3d 1318, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2012).”
