1. “Is Bio-Rad barred as a matter of law from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents where it amended its claims to exclude the very terrain it now accuses, and were the equivalent (consisting of a fluorinated material) vitiates a claim limitation (requiring a ‘non-fluorinated’ one)?” 2. “Did Bio-Rad fail to prove literal infringement as a matter of law, where another limitation of the same patent requires an ‘interface’ between two surfaces and Bio-Rad concedes those two surfaces never touch in 10x’s products?” 3. “Did the district court err in construing a preamble as non-limiting, where the body of the claim references and the preamble as an antecedent, the specification repeatedly recites the limitation emphasized by the preamble, and the examiner added the language in question to the preamble?” 4. “Where a damages expert relies on licenses that are not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation and fails to apportion damages to the value of the patented technology, must the damages award be vacated?” 5. “Where Bio-Rad never claimed that its products competed with four of 10x’s five product lines, and its products do not meaningfully compete on the fifth, did the district court abuse its discretion in enjoining all five lines?”
“For the reasons discussed below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand. Specifically, we affirm the judgment of infringement of the ’083 patent and the entirety of the jury’s damages award. We reverse, however, the district court’s construction of the asserted claims of the ’407 and ’193 patents and vacate the judgment of infringement of those patents. We remand for a new trial on the issue of whether 10X’s accused products infringe the ’407 and ’193 patents under the proper claim construction. We also vacate the district court’s injunction, but only with respect to 10X’s Linked-Reads and CNV product lines.”
