louieblouie - Question for you:
In the Novo case in the Closing Summary, it noted that had their been Evidence submitted that was intentionally altered (in effect - see the quote below) the case would qualify as a "but/for" case meaning it would open the door for a review of the BAD evidence in question if that evidence was used to sway the Trial Judges opinion.
That to me is exactly what Singer is doing... He is forcing the Judges hands to reconsider the evidence.
How will the Appeals Judges respond to evidence used that was altered and clearly incorrect that was a major piece used to decide the case?
I've been saying that the misuse of the SCs opened the door requiring the Judges to review the (bad) evidence - Singer is tying one to the other (bleed over I believe is the term he used.) It appears that they do have to comment on it at this point.
Do you agree?
Quote from Summary of Novo:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."