Is “[a] stipulation of non-infringement in light of an adverse claim construction . . . evidence that a patent owner never had a viable theory of infringement?”
Should fees be awarded “based on the district court’s belief . . . that the claims of the ’844 patent might be invalid, especially where no such finding was ever made and the district court’s belief is based, in part, on a claim construction rejected by this Court”?
Did the Markman construction “notify Innovation that the ’140 patent was legally insufficient either as patent ineligible subject matter or because it lacked a written description”?