1. “Whether the district court erred as a matter of law in determining that defendants who prevailed on two grounds—by obtaining (1) a final judgment based on a stipulation of...
“Whether the district court erred by finding claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 22 of the ’207 patent, which claim an improved cardiac monitoring device, to be...
1. “Did the Board err in its Final Written Decision in IPR2016-01156 finding that claims 1-15, 17-19 and 22-25 of the ’245 patent were not unpatentable as obvious under 35...
1. “Whether the district court erred in holding the asserted claims ineligible as abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. §101?”
2. “Whether the district court erred in holding the claimed method and...
1. “Whether the district court clearly erred by finding that Nevro was irreparably harmed.”
2. “Whether the district court erred legally by not holding the term ‘nonparesthesia- producing . . ....
1. “Did the Court of International Trade erroneously conclude that Algonquin controls the outcome of this action?”
2. “Is Section 232 facially unconstitutional on the ground that it does not impose...
“Whether a defendant who keeps computer equipment in the facility of a third party in a judicial district has a ‘regular and established place of business’ in that district under...
1. “Whether the district court erred, as a matter of law, in dismissing Syngenta’s copyright claims, because the district court’s holding that FIFRA precludes copyright actions based on copying of...
1. “Whether the district court erred in denying Ericsson a jury trial in a declaratory-judgment suit that anticipated, and shared issues with, Ericsson’s patent-infringement suit.”
2. “Whether the district court erred...
1. “Whether the infringement judgment for the ’135 and ’151 patents should be reversed or vacated because: (a) redesigned VPN On Demand does not ‘automatically initiate’ a VPN based on...
“Did WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018), which held that a patent holder may recover lost profits damages from foreign sales under 35 U.S.C. §...
“An involuntary dismissal is an extreme sanction reserved for an incorrigible plaintiff that has failed to comply with case deadlines to the demonstrated prejudice of a diligent defendant. Here the...
1. “Whether the Board erred in concluding the patent claims at issue are unpatentable, by failing to properly apply its own adopted claim construction.”
2. “Whether the Board erred by refusing...
“Whether the district court erred in determining on summary judgment that the claims in U.S. Patent No. 7,774,911 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent ineligible subject...
“Whether the Board erred in ruling that FCA’s MOAB trademark, as shown in the Application and when used in connection with goods identified in the Application, so resembles the Cited...
1. “Whether the District Court committed reversible error by limiting the scope of the ’946 Patent claim to a ‘chair’ embodying the design illustrated in the patent figures based on...
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...
