Whether the lower courts abused their discretion by denying the meritorious Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and whether Rule 60(b)(3) requires a showing that a moving party was diligent in uncovering fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct to obtain relief from a judgment?

is: Whether the lower courts abused their discretion by denying the meritorious Rule 60(b)(3) motion, and whether Rule 60(b)(3) requires a showing that a moving party was diligent in uncovering fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct to obtain relief from a judgment? 2. The three categorical judicial exceptions to patent eligibility that are further defined by the two step Alice/Mayo1 test impose limitations to eligibility that are inconsistent with the text of 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the 1952 Patent Act. These limitations are 1 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Lab’ys, Inc. , 566 U.S. 66 (2012). ii completely untethered from the statute and have swallowed the intended rule of broad patent eligibility itself. The second question presented is: Whether this Court’s three categorical judicial exceptions to patent eligibility that are further defined by the two -step Alice/Mayo test impose limitations on patent eligibility that are inconsistent with the text of 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the Patent Act of 1952? 3. The Federal Circuit routinely and improperly affirms lower courts that resolve eligibility questions at the summary judgment stage even when there are disputed issues of material fact . The Federal Circuit did so here in ignoring over 800 -pages of evidence that created a material factual dispute as to whether the patents were patent eligible. The Federal Circuit also routinely decides issues that were never appealed or ruled on below. It did so here by ruling on a new issue sua sponte . The third question presented is: Whether this Court’s supervisory authority is needed to correct the Federal Circuit’s improper (1) application of Rule 56 to patent cases and (2) practice of deciding issues that were never argued or briefed on appeal?