Whether the Federal Circuit may apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by this Court and all other circuit courts in nonpatent cases

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Chrimar brought an action for infringement against ALE under four patents. A jury rejected ALE’s invalidity defenses and awarded past damages. The District Court then awarded post-judgment ongoing royalties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed liability and damages, expressly holding that a partial remand to reconstrue one patent was “immaterial to damages because any damages that would result from the alleged infringement of the [remanded] ’012 patent also results from the infringement of the ’107 and ’760 patents.” App. 48a. After the District Court’s entry of the eventually-affirmed judgment, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) (part of an Executive Branch agency) rendered final decisions finding unpatentable all asserted claims (a decision later affirmed). On this basis, the Federal Circuit ordered that the Article III damages judgment be vacated and remanded for dismissal. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the later Executive Branch administrative outcome required vacating the prior already-affirmed Article III judgment. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Federal Circuit may apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by this Court and all other circuit courts in nonpatent cases. 2. Whether a final judgment of liability and damages that has been affirmed on appeal may be reversed based on the decision of an administrative agency, merely because an appeal having nothing to do with liability, damages or the proper calculation of the ongoing royalty rate is pending.