1. “Whether it is a sufficient basis for denying a permanent injunction that the infringer directly competes with third parties that license completely different patents from the patentholder.” 2. “Whether the panel improperly affirmed the denial of a permanent injunction where uncontradicted evidence proves: • the patentholder and infringer view each other as competitors; • the infringer has never licensed the patent-at-suit; • the infringer previously purchased from the patentholder before it created an infringing substitute; • infringing competition decreases demand for the patentholder’s products and has caused the patentholder’s customers to negotiate lower [redacted]; • the infringer’s marketing undercuts the patentholder’s brand; and • the infringer [redacted] to [redacted] a product that would further compete in the patentholder’s primary market through infringement.”
