1. Whether “[t]he panel affirmed the judgment of induced infring[e]ment by relying on evidence of attempted-but-failed infring[e]ment” and whether “[a]ttempted infring[e]ment cannot suffice to prove practice of all claim elements.”
2. Whether “[t]he panel’s specific intent holding failed to consider noninfringing uses or recognize the district court’s erroneous analysis thereof” and whether “[a]ll of this product’s indicated uses are noninfringing.”
3. Whether “[a] patient missing a dose is a limitation of the asserted method claim”; whether “[p]ractice of the method is conditioned on a patient interrupting their therapy”; and whether “the panel assessed intent in the hypothetical world where a dose has already been missed–assuming conditionality away and eliding critical label warnings against missing doses.”
