Eight,
IMO, It is not "new evidence" neither is it a request for further debate about previously arbitrated prior art. In plain fact, what this represents is overlooked fraud on the court by misrepresentation. It should be every bit as compelling to a judge as an evidentiary gatekeeper, as evidence tampering or contamination. To dismiss it for reasons of failure to raise previously, or as "new evidence" would be to debase our legal system to a new level of unscrupulousness motivated by party politics. Fraud is fraud whether undiscovered by any of the parties, judge, plaintiffs or defendants. The burden of the law is to detect it and expunge it from evidentiary influence, and not dismiss it because no one mentioned it before?
HK
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
