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...
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...
“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 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...
1. “Where SAS holds multiple copyright registrations affording it a statutory presumption of validity, and where it is well-settled that a defendant contesting the protectability of copied material must present...
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...
“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. “First, in Section II.A., the plain language of the CDA, the FAR, the DFARS, and this Court’s precedent interpreting those authorities make clear that modifications unilaterally imposing prices, requiring...
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 district court clearly erred and/or abused discretion in determining that each of Gorge’s causes of action were not baseless or frivolous.”
2. “Whether the district court clearly erred...
“Whether the Commission legally erred in holding that Panduit and Siemon imported ‘articles that . . . infringe’ under the importation requirement of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B) based on its...
1. “Whether the court erred by applying the Contract Disputes Act’s appellate standard of de novo review.”
2. “Whether the court erred by (a) disregarding as irrelevant or giving little weight...
1. Whether “[t]he Claims Court committed clear error by holding that ‘valid informal claims are only those that [have] not misled the [IRS] and [have been] accepted and treated by...
“Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars Appellants’ challenge to the NHK-Fintiv Rule, where Appellants’ suit does not seek to appeal any institution decision but instead seeks to set the Rule...
1. “Whether the FDCA’s references to patents that claim a ‘method of using [a]’ drug should be interpreted to encompass those claiming ‘conditions of use,’ as FDA has interpreted that...
“Whether, at Alice step one, Bard’s claims directed to vascular access ports containing, inter alia, structures such as a port body, a septum and an outlet stem and either a...
1. “Were the railroad purpose easements obtained by the railroad as ‘voluntary grants’ broad enough to permit railbanking and the construction of a hiking and biking trail under the Trails...
“The question presented is whether the President acted within his authority when he issued Proclamation 9980, extending the tariffs to derivatives of steel and aluminum, after the 90- and 15-day...
1. “Whether the BCNR erred by failing to give ‘liberal consideration’ to Doyon’s application seeking discharge relief related to his service-connected PTSD, including by failing to give liberal consideration when...
1. “Whether the district court committed legal and clear factual errors and otherwise abused its discretion in holding that Apple met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence,...
