“[W]hether the part of 38 C.F.R. § 3.654(b)(2) (regulation 3.654(b)(2)), limiting the resumption of payment of disability benefits to ‘the day following release from active duty if [a] claim for...
“Whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Teva willfully induced infringement of GSK’s patented method of treating congestive heart failure where: (a) Teva encouraged the infringing use in promotional...
“Whether Apple is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to transfer the underlying litigation to the Northern District of California.”
“Whether the District Court clearly abused its discretion in refusing to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, where the overwhelming weight of the convenience factors under 28...
1. “Whether contractual language providing that patents ‘shall be the property of [an employing entity, here, the University of Michigan],’ without requiring any further acts from the parties, operates as...
“Whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) misinterpreted the plain language of 38 U.S.C. §§ 3322 and 3327 in holding that the election provisions expressly contained therein do...
1. “Whether the district court erred by holding that Plaintiffs’ pre-filing assignment of geographically limited patent rights to a newly minted related entity precluded transfer regardless of the convenience of...
“Whether it is unlawful for the federal government to rely on a state’s concededly unconstitutional definition of marriage to deny survivor benefits to the surviving member of a long-term, committed...
“Did the holding in Ortiz v. Principi misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 by setting forth an equipose-of-the-evidence [sic] standard for veterans to prove their claims...
“Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion by failing to meaningfully exercise its discretion and instead implementing a standard whereby virtually no patent infringement case would be subject to...
“Whether the unusual structure for instituting and funding AIA post-grant reviews violates the Due Process Clause in view of Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), and its progeny, which...
1. “Did the district court err in concluding that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over PerDiemCo even though (a) PerDiemCo expressly and repeatedly accused Trimble, a company based in northern...
“Whether, for the purpose of a jurisdictional ruling prior to hearing, the Board erred in failing to consider whether Dr. Tao had engaged in protected activity under 5 U.S.C. §...
Whether “[t]he Veterans Court’s ‘direct relationship’ requirement is an erroneous legal standard for determining what facts are before the Board because it excludes relevant matters that are known or should...
“Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to apply the first-to- file rule by:
(1) erroneously concluding that the WDTX’s decision regarding the ’606 patent could conflict with the...
“Whether the district court erred in holding that any reasonable juror was required to find that Sanofi-Regeneron established non-enablement by clear-and- convincing evidence.”
“Did the CAVC misinterpret 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(2) in holding that a five-year delay in deciding a disabled veteran’s administrative appeal does not amount to an unreasonable delay.”
“Did the CAVC...
“Whether the Board acted contrary to law or arbitrarily and capriciously in denying SIPCO’s motion seeking leave to request a certificate of correction from the Director of the Patent Office,...
“The issues on appeal center on the interplay of the Rule of Two mandate in 38 U.S.C. §§ 8127, 8128 and the printing mandate in 44 U.S.C. § 501 requiring...
