1. “Whether the district court legally erred in its framework for evaluating objective indicia of non-obviousness, by (a) concluding that the claims were obvious before even analyzing the compelling objective...
1. “Whether the insurers’ statutory claims fail because Congress did not intend for insurers to receive damages as compensation for cost-sharing payments that Congress declined to fund.”
2. “Whether the insurers’...
“Congress has conferred limited authority on the judiciary to charge fees for access to electronic court records. These fees may be imposed ‘as a charge for services rendered’ to ‘reimburse...
1. “Is Bio-Rad barred as a matter of law from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents where it amended its claims to exclude the very terrain it now accuses,...
1. “Section 1.2(d) of the License Agreement at issue in this case permits Mylan to launch its generic colchicine product a specified time period ‘after the date of a Final...
1. “Section 1.2(d) of the License Agreement at issue in this case permits Alkem to launch its generic Colcrys® product a specified time period ‘after the date of a Final...
“The primary issue on appeal is whether the Board erred in denying, based only on a § 101 patent eligibility challenge, Uniloc’s motion to amend the patent in this inter...
1. “Whether the CFC erred in ruling that a number of deeds for the rail corridor at issue in this case conveyed merely an easement to the railroad where no...
“Whether a claimant’s general statement requesting benefits on a formal claim form that identifies specific disabilities constitutes a claim for all ‘reasonably identifiable’ diagnoses within the claimant’s records.”
1. “Whether the Court should vacate the district court’s judgment of noninfringement by Watson and direct entry of the consent judgment necessary to effectuate the parties’ agreement to settle, because:...
1. “Whether Arthrex should be extended to ex parte examination cases.”
2. “Whether the Director’s purported ability to refuse to issue a patent if the Patent Trial and Appeal Board approves...
1. “Whether the patents-in-suit are invalid for [obviousness-type double patenting], where Immunex— which owns all substantial rights in those patents, including the ability to control patent prosecution—had already obtained earlier-expiring...
1. “Whether the CFC erred in holding that a NITU—which did not authorize third-party use of the railroad’s right-of-way but merely imposed a short administrative hold in the railroad’s voluntary...
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...
