1. “Whether the district court erred in immunizing from antitrust scrutiny patent acquisitions that violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act because some of the patents were later asserted in litigation.”
2. “Whether the district court erred in immunizing the entirety of an anticompetitive scheme that violates Section 2 of the Sherman Act because one component part of that scheme involved filing multiple patent infringement lawsuits.”
3. “Whether the district court erred by applying the sham litigation test applicable to a single lawsuit rather than the holistic test used when a defendant employs a series of petitions in pursuit of an anticompetitive goal.”
4. “Whether the district court wrongly applied issue preclusion to preclude litigation over the fact-intensive issue of market definition when that issue provided only one alternative and independent ground for dismissal in the first action, and when the alleged market definition differed between the cases.”
“Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court on all of Capital One’s antitrust claims on collateral estoppel grounds. For that reason, we find it unnecessary to reach the parties’ dispute regarding the Noerr-Penning- ton doctrine or IV’s arguments on the merits of Capital One’s antitrust claims.”
