1. “Whether summary judgment on Teradata’s tying claim should be reversed because the district court erroneously (a) excluded testimony from Teradata’s expert economist; (b) refused to apply the per se rule governing tying claims; (c) relied on a late-filed declaration on the tie’s purported procompetitive benefits; and/or (d) disregarded material factual disputes.”
2. “Whether summary judgment on Teradata’s trade-secret claim should be reversed because the court misconstrued the parties’ agreements and resolved material factual disputes.”
