“Whether the unusual 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...
“[W]hether the U.S. Court of International Trade erred when it held the [Rule promulgated by the Department of the Treasury in conjunction with U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirming the...
“Whether it is unlawful for the federal government to rely on a state’s concededly unconstitutional definition of marriage to deny survivor benefits to the surviving member of a long-term, committed...
1. “Did the district court err in excluding evidence of comparable-license negotiations under the parol-evidence rule in a Georgia-Pacific analysis and the resulting royalty opinions?”
2. “Did the district court err...
“Whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Teva willfully induced infringement of GSK’s patented method of treating congestive heart failure where: (a) Teva encouraged the infringing use in promotional...
“Did the holding in Ortiz v. Principi misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 by setting forth an equipose-of-the-evidence [sic] standard for veterans to prove their claims...
1. “Did the district court err in concluding that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo even though (a) PerDiemCo expressly and repeatedly accused Trimble, a company based in northern...
“Whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein...
“Whether the unusual 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 Government commits a categorical physical taking when it uses its legislative authority to require the abandonment or total destruction of lawfully acquired personal property.”
“Whether the Government commits a...
“Whether the Board erred by rejecting Petitioner’s own expert’s claim construction of ‘wearable’ in the Patents’ context as ‘unobtrusive and easily hidden’ (like performer bodypacks are), and further erred by...
1. “Whether, in determining that Patent No. 6,477,151 (the ‘151’, or the ‘’151 Patent’) is unenforceable, the district court committed an error of law in failing to apply a ‘but...
“Whether in the instant action, the validity challenges brought by Samsung in the PTAB fall under the forum selection clause (‘FSC’) of the parties’ NDA because the validity challenges ‘relate...
1. “Whether contractual language providing that patents ‘shall be the property of [an employing entity, here, the University of Michigan],’ without requiring any further acts from the parties, operates as...
“Whether, for the purpose of a jurisdictional ruling prior to hearing, the Board erred in failing to consider whether Dr. Tao had engaged in protected activity under 5 U.S.C. §...
“[W]hether the part of 38 C.F.R. § 3.654(b)(2) (regulation 3.654(b)(2)), limiting the resumption of payment of disability benefits to ‘the day following release from active duty if [a] claim for...
Whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should...
“Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to apply the first-to- file rule by:
(1) erroneously concluding that the WDTX’s decision regarding the ’606 patent could conflict with the...
“Whether the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.”
“Did the CAVC misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay.”
“Did the CAVC...
