1. “Whether the PTAB relied on the wrong legal standard in determining structural obviousness, because it ignored whether a skilled artisan: would have been motivated to deuterate ruxolitinib to alter...
1. “Whether the structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which...
“Whether the ALJ legally erred in concluding that Celanese’s sales of products made by its secret, inventive process invalidate its patent claims on that process under the on-sale provision of...
1. “Whether the Commission erred in determining that Apple did not violate Section 337 on the basis that claims 16 and 17 of the ’499 patent are invalid for lack...
1. “Whether, in using the term ‘modification’ in Section 204(b)(1)(B), Congress limited the President to ‘trade- liberalizing’ modifications, prohibiting the President from modifying a safeguard to revoke an improvidently-granted exclusion...
1. “Whether summary judgment on Teradata’s tying claim should be reversed because the district court erroneously (a) excluded testimony from Teradata’s expert economist; (b) refused to apply the per se...
1. “Did the district court err by failing to consider the combined weight and effect of evidence demonstrating Hikma’s repeated extra-label encouragement of using their generic version of Amarin’s patented...
“Did the International Trade Commission (‘Commission’) err when it found that claims 1, 2, 11, 15, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,508,502 (‘the ‘502 patent’) are directed to an...
1. “Did the Court of Federal Claims err as a matter of law in dismissing Plaintiffs’ takings claim?”
2. “Did the Court of Federal Claims err as a matter of law...
1. “Whether the Board erred in determining that claims 7-9 and 17-19 of the ’499 patent and claims 3, 5, 6, 19, 21, and 22 of the ’731 patent, which...
“Whether it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, clearly erroneous, or otherwise not in accordance with the law for:”
“Judge Davis to uncritically accept that the Special Master had the...
1. “In finding these claims invalid as obvious, the district court relied on a press release (“the RFIB2001 Press Release”), which quotes a named inventor and reports some results of...
1. “Whether the district court erred in excluding evidence on invalidity and granting partial JMOL for plaintiffs on that issue.”
2. “Whether defendants are entitled to JMOL that claim 1 of...
1. “Whether patent term adjustments should be treated in the same way as patent term extensions for purposes of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting.”
2. “Whether a patent can become a basis...
1. “Did the district court err in concluding that all seven asserted patents in three distinct patent families comprising 211 total claims, each of which discloses discrete methods and systems...
1. “Whether the special master abused his discretion by denying relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(1) when a mistake of fact infected the special master’s decision denying compensation.”
2. “Whether the...
1. “Whether the Board erred in finding that Besanceney’s December 2016 disclosure to his supervisors about the lack of probable cause for a search warrant was not protected, when that...
1. “Whether the magistrate judge erred in holding that Mr. Jenkins could not assert a compensable takings claim arising from the federal government’s physical appropriation of his property outside of...
“Whether the CFC’s judgment that the United States is liable for a taking of private property should be reversed on any of the following grounds:
1. The CFC applied an incorrect...
1. “Did the Board err by disregarding the plain meaning of the claims in light of the claim language and specification that require the claimed ‘time select switch . ....
