`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Whether a reasonable factfinder could find by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that the single most reasonable inference from the evidence of record is that
`
`the Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents intended to deceive the Patent
`
`Office during prosecution.
`
`2. Whether Defendants may use their stricken invalidity theories relating to
`
`Project Angel to support their inequitable conduct allegations, and, if not,
`
`whether a reasonable factfinder could find by clear and convincing evidence
`
`that Project Angel was but-for material based on the remaining evidence of
`
`record.
`
`3. Whether Defendants’ allegations of unclean hands rise and fall with their
`
`allegations of inequitable conduct, and, if not, whether a reasonable factfinder
`
`could conclude by clear and convincing evidence, based on the evidence of
`
`record, that Neo is barred from asserting the Asserted Patents due to egregious
`
`misconduct akin to perjury, the manufacture of false evidence, or the
`
`suppression of evidence.
`
`4. Whether the materials that Defendants and their experts rely on from a
`
`separate litigation involving third-party Adaptix is inadmissible and should be
`
`considered by the Court in deciding this Motion.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 258-1, PageID.19903 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 2
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY
`
`CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1(A)
`Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a), the parties met-and-conferred on June 14, 2024
`
`
`
`regarding the relief sought in this Motion. Defendants did not concur on any of the
`
`relief requested herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
