With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 5 (ECF No. 218) (citations omitted). However, the PTAB’s Institution Decision is only preliminary and did not have any input from the patent owner. Plaintiff UUSI did not offer any construction of “a voltage signals” to the PTAB in support of its construction of “a voltage signals,” as it did before this Court. Instead, Plaintiff UUSI reserved its right “to offer constructions of the limitations in the dependent claims should the Board decide to institute the Petition.” Institution Decision 14 n.9. Plaintiff UUSI’s choice to abstain from proffering evidence in support of its construction before the PTAB undermines the persuasive weight of the PTAB’s construction of “a voltage signals” before this Court. See SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. Peca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (<HOLDING>). “power correction after removal or an

A: holding that the ptabs claim construction decision was not binding on the trial court in part because issue preclusion requires that the issues were actually litigated by the parties  quoting in re trans tex holdings corp 498 f3d 1290 1297 fed cir 2007
B: holding that trial by consent requires that the parties actually recognize the issue to have been litigated
C: holding that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars readjudication of issues when 1 the prior suit resulted in judgment on the merits 2 identical issues are involved 3 the issue was actually litigated 4 the issue was actually determined and 5 the determination was necessary to the resulting judgment
D: holding arbitration decision disallowing insurers coverage defense binding in subsequent personal injury action where the issue was actually litigated and decided in prior action
A.