To Prevent Injustice, . .

Based on my professional judgment, I believe the panel decision is contrary
to the following decision(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States or the
precedent(s) of this court: (i) Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc., 529 U.S. 460 (2000); (ii)
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011); (iii)
Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, 473 F.3d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2006); (iv)
Cross Med. Prod., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir.
2005); (v) TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 608 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); (vi) Star
Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

III. CONCLUSION To prevent injustice, comply with controlling authority, and avoid creating dangerous new precedent, the panel’s decision should be reheard en banc. Upon such rehearing, the Judgment of this Court should be lifted, and this Court should enter an order: (i) reversing the summary judgment of on-sale bar; and (ii) vacating the finding of inequitable conduct. This Court should then review, either en banc or in panel, the remaining issues raised in Appellants’ appeal, which the panel did not reach. Upon such review, for the reasons stated in Appellants’ Briefs, the judgment of the district court should be vacated, and this case should be remanded for trial.

See Here

SkunK