1. “Whether the district court erred in sua sponte raising and then granting judgment as a matter of law on patent ineligibility, an issue that was not tried because this Court’s mandate already resolved it.”
2. “Whether the district court erred in sua sponte granting judgment as a matter of law on indefiniteness, an issue never tried nor raised in any post-judgment motion because the experts agreed the claims’ scope depends on objective boundaries.”
3. “Whether the district court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on anticipation for multiple independent reasons, including because this Court already held materially identical evidence sufficient for a jury to find in Bard’s favor; the jury reasonably so found; and no prior art discloses radiographic letters, which are required by all but one asserted claim.”
4. “Whether the jury’s verdict finding willful infringement should be reinstated because this Court already held materially identical evidence sufficient for a jury to find in Bard’s favor and, in any event, the jury reasonably so found.”
5. “Whether the district court erred in alternatively granting a new trial sua sponte based on purportedly erroneous jury instructions, because the instructions properly reflected the court’s correct claim constructions and Bard and its witnesses faithfully applied those constructions.”
6. “Whether the district court’s repeated errors in defiance of this Court’s mandate warrant reassignment on remand.”
