"As an added benefit, and most germane to our Reply, under Ninth Circuit law, the exposure of fraud is a recognized exception granting a non-party standing to intervene to file a Rule 60 motion."
This is something that both Du and Hikma did not contend with if I remember correctly, and yet it's a crucial point. We don't even need rule 24 under the exception do we?
Marjac...QUOTE "Defendants deserve to have “the full weight of legal remedies” fall upon them as a party who gets caught with its hand in the proverbial cookie jar “must suffer the known consequences”."
I would be satisfied if we just get our Anchor patents restored...and no longer have to contend with this "skinny label' distortion of HW, which is not in the public interest.