1. “Whether the infringement judgment and/or damages award should be reversed or vacated because Centripetal did not prove—and the district court did not find—that Cisco made, used, offered for sale, or sold any product practicing the asserted claims.” 2. “Whether the infringement findings are clearly erroneous and/or rest on legal errors.” 3. “Whether the damages award should be reversed or vacated for lack of apportionment or reliance on a noncomparable settlement license.” 4. “Whether the district court clearly erred in finding willful infringement and enhancing the damages award 2.5 times.” 5. “Whether the district judge should have recused himself under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b).”
“We hold that the district court judge was disqualified from hearing the case once he became aware of his wife’s ownership of Cisco stock.” “[W]e find Judge Morgan’s violation of § 455(b)(4) was not harmless error, vacatur is the appropriate remedy.”
