determination.”). Notably, Defendants do not argue that the defenses of patent exhaustion and implied license do not possess “substantial commonality.” Rather, Defendants reiterate arguments made at trial before the jury on its defense of patent exhaustion. (Defendants’ Equitable Defenses Brief at 1-5; Defendants Equitable Defenses Reply at 1-10.) Defendants also accuse counsel for Kaneka of making improper and prejudicial statements during closing argument. (Id. at 5-7.) Undeniably, substantial commonality exists among the factual questions presented by these affirmative defenses. The jury’s finding that the Hirano license did not authorized the sale of polyimide film manufacturing equipment to SKPI’s predecessors-is a factual finding. See Cornell Univ., 2008 WL 5671886, at *1 (<HOLDING>). This Court cannot now find that the sales
recognizing that exhaustion is mandatory and jurisdictional recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different holding agreed judgment presents question of waiver or estoppel rather than question of jurisdiction recognizing that patent exhaustion presents a factual question holding that probable cause determination presents a mixed question of law and fact