“Whether the ASBCA erred in holding that DFARS 252.227-7013 precludes government contractors from marking technical data delivered to the Government in a manner that (a) recognizes the Government’s unlimited rights...
“I. Network-1’s Appeal
A. Independent Basis for Verdict: Does the evidence compel a finding of non-infringement irrespective of the challenged constructions?
B. Claim Construction:
1. Did the district court properly construe ‘low level...
1. “Whether, in determining that Patent No. 6,477,151 (the ‘151’, or the ‘’151 Patent’) is unenforceable, the district court committed an error of law in failing to apply a ‘but...
1. “Did the CAVC misinterpret Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement to require that a proposed class of disabled veterans seeking class certification of claims alleging unreasonable system-wide delay always identify a...
1. “Whether the asserted claims are invalid because: (1) They were anticipated by the prior art; or (2)They are not enabled and lack sufficient written description.”
2. “Whether the asserted claims...
Whether a “third party’s facility qualif[ies] as a ‘regular and established place of business’ of Google within the Eastern District” based on “Google’s arms-length contract with a third-party service provider...
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...
