1. “Whether the district court erred in granting JMOL based on its conclusions that the skilled artisan ‘would have to undertake undue experimentation to find a “unit dosage” that would not fatally poison a patient,’ . . . and that the patents did not adequately describe a safe, ‘administrable unit dosage—if any—for different compounds covered by the asserted claims,’ . . . where: (a) as in United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., 74 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023), the claims are directed to a ‘therapeutic effect’ and do not claim any particular patient safety standard (e.g., non-lethality); (b) even under the court’s post-trial reconstruction, AstraZeneca never advanced a fatal dosages argument, and the evidence showed that patients tolerated unit dosage administration of relevant compounds consistent with side effects common to all EGFR inhibitors (e.g., gastrointestinal and dermatologic issues), including AstraZeneca’s own product, Tagrisso; and (c) the court’s post-verdict reconstruction departed from its Markman/trial construction that the claims do not require safety or other endpoints that might be relevant to clinical trials or FDA approval.” 2. “Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment of no pre-issuance damages based on its statutory interpretation that pre-issuance patent rights under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d) do not protect against induced infringement.”
