1. “Is a patent claim directed to collecting, processing, and outputting a particular kind of video data using generic computer technology unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101?” 2. “If a jury finds one claim invalid and a near-identical second claim valid, is the second claim also invalid when it includes only a single unique limitation and it is not disputed that this single limitation is known in the prior art?” 3. “Should a damages award be vacated where the district court states that the exclusion of an expert’s damages opinion is ‘the exception, not the rule,’ the underlying expert opinion fails to apportion and is based on documents that lack technical and economic comparability to the asserted patents, and ultimately the jury never hears any testimony about the standalone value of the lone claim it found infringed?” 4. “Should a prejudgment interest award be vacated when the plaintiff sought a running royalty, but the district court calculated the award based on an assumption that all royalties have been paid as a lump-sum on the day the infringement began (before plaintiff owned the patent) and continued to accrue over the years the case was stayed?”
