Appeal:
1. “Does 28 U.S.C. § 1498 enable the Government to consent to patent infringement by AeroVironment where such consent breaches its contractual and statutory obligations to Lite, a Phase III award recipient, pursuant to the SBIR statute?”
2. “Does AeroVironment’s widespread use of ‘Terry,’ the terrestrial version of the Mars Helicopter Ingenuity, constitute ‘de minimis’ activity, extending Section 1498 immunity to infringing activity that would otherwise be compensable under 35 U.S.C. § 271?”
3. “Did the district court properly exercise its discretion in holding that the Arltons failed to show ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 by imposing a requirement that the Arltons demonstrate extreme diligence while at the same time ignoring circumstances that were outside the Arltons’ control?”
Cross Appeal:
1. “Whether the District Court correctly granted summary judgment of noninfringement under 28 U.S.C. § 1498.”
2. “Whether the District Court correctly denied Appellants’ untimely motion for leave to amend their Complaint.”
3. “Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying AeroVironment’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.”
