1. “Whether the district court abused its discretion when it applied the wrong legal standard when analyzing Jacki Easlick Companies’ likelihood of success on the merits on their design patent infringement claim by comparing individual design features rather than the overall appearance of the products and by failing to consider designs in the context of the prior art?”
2. “Whether the district court abused its discretion when it found that the Jacki Easlick Companies did not provide evidence that they were suffering irreparable harm, when Accencyc did not contest the issue before the district court and the district court was apparently unaware of the evidence that Jacki Easlick Companies submitted to establish irreparable harm?”
