Tag Archives: en banc

En Banc Federal Circuit Clarifies On Sale Bar Standard

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Federal CircuitIn The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc. (Nos. 2014-1469 and 2014-1504), the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision clarifying when a product made pursuant to a “product-by-process” claim is on sale for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) under the pre-AIA standards. In a decision written by Judge O’Malley, the Court held that to be on-sale, the product must have been the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale that bears the “general hallmarks” of a sale under § 2-106 of the UCC.

Background

The case involved an Abbreviated New Drug Application in which Hospira sought FDA approval to sell a generic drug before expiration of two of the patents-in-suit, which claim pH-adjusted pharmaceutical batches of a drug product used to prevent blood from clotting. The patents arose out research involving a similar drug not covered by the patents.

In late 2006 MedCo paid a company (Ben Venue) to manufacture three batches of the drug according to the patented process. The three batches were manufactured by the end of 2006 and had a value of over $20 million (even though it cost substantially less to manufacture them). The three batches were placed in quarantine pending FDA approval. The batches were finally released from quarantine in August 2007, which was after the July 27, 2007 critical date.

Hospira claimed that the patents were invalid under § 102(b) for being on-sale prior to the critical date because of the contract between MedCo and Ben Venue to manufacture the three batches. The district court disagreed, finding that the MedCo-Ben Venue sale was a contract for manufacturing services, and not a commercial sale under § 102(b).

The three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit reversed, finding that the contract did trigger the on-sale bar. The entire Federal Circuit then took up the issue en banc to clarify the on-sale bar standard. The en banc Federal Circuit determined that there was no invalidating prior sale for purposes of § 102(b).

Federal Circuit Clarifies On-Sale Bar Standard

Whether the on-sale bar applies is a question of law based on factual findings, so the lower court’s factual findings were reviewed with deference, but the ultimate legal question was reviewed de novo by the Federal Circuit.

The Court traced the history of the on-sale bar and how it was first codified in the Patent Act of 1836, before its final incarnation (for purposes of these patents) in the Patent Act of 1952. Under § 102(b) an inventor is not entitled to a patent if the invention was on sale in the United States more than one year prior to the date of the patent application.

In Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (1998), the Supreme Court clarified the proper analysis of the on-sale bar, and held that courts should employ a two-part test: (1) was the claimed invention the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and (2) was it ready for patenting at that time? Ready for patenting means either it was reduced to practice or there were sufficient drawings or descriptions to allow one or ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention.

The en banc Federal Circuit focused on the first prong of the Pfaff test–was the invention the subject of a commercial offer for sale? The Court determined that it must answer this question by looking what those in the commercial community would understand as being a sale or offer for sale, and that the UCC was a good resource for answering that question.

Under the UCC, “[a] sale is a contract between parties to give and to pass rights of property for consideration which the buyer pays or promises to pay the seller for the thing bought or sold.” Under this standard, the Federal Circuit did not consider MedCo’s contract with Ben Venue to be a commercial sale because (1) only manufacturing services were sold to MedCo, not the invention, (2) the inventor retained title to the invention and Ben Venue was not entitled to sell the product to others, and (3) stockpiling standing alone does not trigger the on-sale bar.

Here, the patents claimed a product by process, not the process itself. So, the contract to manufacturing the drug was not a contract to purchase the product itself. The Court also found meaningful that Ben Venue lacked title to the batches–MedCo always maintained title in them. Without a transfer a title, the Court was disinclined to find that a sale of a product had occurred. In addition, MedCo and Ben Venue had a confidentiality agreement. While not conclusive, this factor also weighed in favor of the Court finding that a sale had not occurred. Finally, the Court did not find that stockpiling a product was sufficient activity to trigger the on-sale bar because that activity fell into the category of actions that amount to preparations for sales.

Conclusion

Taken together, the Federal Circuit found that there was no commercial offer for sale or sale for purposes of § 102(b) under the pre-AIA standard. This decision will provide some additional clarity and direction for what constitutes a potentially invalidating sale of goods.

Advertisements

Federal Circuit Again Splits on Willful Infringement

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at the Pittsburgh law firm of Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

6436135 ImageThe Federal Circuit issued another contentious decision on the subject of willful infringement on Tuesday in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., (No. 2014-1114), splitting 2-1 and with another judge calling for the Circuit to revisit the law in this area.

The Bard-Gore case has had a long and tortured past, beginning more than 40 years ago. Gore, which makes an ePTFE polymer under the brand name Gore-Tex®, invited Dr. David Goldfarb to its facilities in 1973 to participate in a study of Gore’s product for use as a vascular prosthesis. Gore was trying to find new uses for its product, including in the medical fields. Based on the materials that Gore provided to Dr. Goldfarb, Dr. Goldfarb filed a patent application on the structure of the most effective of the samples he tested back in 1974. Peter Cooper from Gore had previously filed a patent application, and the USPTO conducted an interference proceeding.

In the interference proceeding, the USPTO concluded that Cooper was the first to conceive of the subject matter of the invention, but Dr. Goldfarb was the first to reduce it to practice. Therefore, the USPTO awarded the patent to Dr. Goldfarb. The Federal Circuit affirmed, and the patent ultimately issued in 2002. During the pendency of this dispute, Gore continued to develop and sell ePTFE grafts and medical devices.

In 2003, Dr. Goldfarb and Bard sued Gore for infringement (previously, Dr. Goldfarb licensed the patent to Bard). The jury returned a verdict of willful infringement and awarded over $185 million in damages, which the district court doubled. The district court also awarded attorneys’ fees and costs. The Federal Circuit affirmed in a split panel, but the full Circuit vacated the decision in a rehearing en banc, ordering the district court to reconsider the willful infringement finding de novo. The district court reconsidered the evidence and reinstated its prior judgment. The Federal Circuit, in this decision, affirmed in a 2-1 decision with three separate opinions.

Judge Prost, writing the opinion of the Court, reviewed the evidence de novo and concluded that Gore’s defenses were not reasonable. In particular, the Court rejected the notion that the fact that a prior member of the panel at the Federal Circuit dissented does not mean that Gore’s position was reasonable. The Court did not want to create the precedent that a single dissenting view would preclude a finding of willful infringement as a matter of law.

Judge Hughes wrote a concurring opinion in which he called into question the Federal Circuit’s jurisprudence on willful infringement—in particular, the two-part objective-subjective test and the de novo standard of review. He believes that the full panel should reconsider the law in this area and should apply a deferential standard of review.

Finally, Judge Newman wrote a strong dissent in which she would have reversed the district court’s decision on willfulness. She was troubled by the majority’s failure to discuss what she believed to be relevant evidence supporting Gore’s position. She was also troubled by the fact that the district court refused to enjoin Gore from selling its products but then enhanced the damages.

This decision is another in which the judges on the Federal Circuit are openly questioning the current state of the law on willful infringement. It will be interesting to see if the Federal Circuit rehears one of these cases en banc to settle the disagreements that are brewing internally.

 

 

Federal Circuit Determines That It Has Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal Before Damages or Willfulness Determination

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Federal CircuitIn an en banc decision in Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., No. 2011-1363, -1364, the Federal Circuit held that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) to hear an appeal of a jury’s determination of infringement even though the issues of damages and willful infringement have not been decided. Judge Prost was joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Newman, Lourie, and Dyk. Judges Moore and Reyna concurred with respect to an appeal where just the damages determination has not been made, but dissented with respect to appeals where the willful infringement determination has not been made. Judges O’Malley and Wallach dissented as to both.

The case had a rather unusual procedural path. In 2008, Robert Bosch sued Pylon Manufacturing for infringing its patents relating to wiper blades. Pylon moved the district court to bifurcate the issue of infringement from the issues of damages and willful infringement. The court granted the motion and stayed discovery with respect to both damages and willful infringement. The court entered partial summary judgment on some issues in favor of both parties, but found jury questions relating to some of the infringement and invalidity claims. The jury found that Pylon infringed the claims of the patents and that the patents were not invalid. The court denied Bosch’s motion for a permanent injunction. Bosch appealed, and the Federal Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge O’Malley and joined by Judge Reyna, reversed and remanded. The parties also appealed the infringement and invalidity decisions. After oral argument, the Federal Circuit, sua sponte, granted a rehearing en banc to determine whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place because the damages and willful infringement issues had not been decided.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2), the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction to hear appeals “from a judgment in a civil action for patent infringement which would otherwise be appealable . . . and is final except for an accounting.” Thus, the question was whether the damages and willful infringement determinations fall within the rubric of an “accounting.”

In analyzing the history of the statute and the understanding of the term “accounting,” the Court determined that an accounting was “a proceeding that includes the determination of both profits and damages.” The Court further noted that historically such accountings were made by special masters, but that this limitation no longer applied, especially after the merger of law and equity occurred in the courts.

With respect to willful infringement, the Court found that historically the issue of enhancement of damages was determined as part of an accounting. Thus, the Court found that it had jurisdiction to hear appeals when the issues of both damages and willful infringement remain outstanding. The Court then returned the case to the panel to decide the appeal on its merits.

The dissent reached a different conclusion, finding that the historical precedent made clear that the term accounting in the statute did not apply to either the damage or willful infringement determinations. Judge O’Malley noted that “[i]n all other circuits and all other types of cases, the finality requirement plainly applies to outstanding damages determinations.” She cautioned that there was no justification for treating patent cases any differently.

Is Software Patentable? Fed Circuit Isn’t Sure—CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Alice Tea PartyEarlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited en banc opinion on the patentability of software in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd., No. 2011-1301. In an ironic twist, the result is something more akin to Alice in Wonderland than the clear guidance patent practitioners were hoping for. The Federal Circuit issued a 135-page decision comprised of separate written opinions by Judges Lourie, Rader, Moore, Newman, and Linn, as well as an “Additional Reflection” by Chief Judge Rader, none of which commanded a majority. The end result was a one-paragraph per curiam opinion in which a majority of the Court determined that the particular method  and computer-readable media claims were not directed to patent eligible subject matter (for different reasons) and an equally-divided Court affirmed by default the District Court’s holding that the system claims were not patent eligible.

The Claims at Issue

Alice Corp. owned four patents relating to a computerized trading platform used for conducting financial transactions in which a third party acts as an intermediary to assure the first and second parties that they will both perform. If one of the parties cannot perform, the transaction is not completed and neither side risks non-performance of the other.

The patents contained method, computer-readable media, and system claims, all of which involved software aspects.

Judge Lourie’s Opinion

Judge Lourie, joined by Judges Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach, would have held that all of the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The statute contains four eligible classes of inventions:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. § 101. He noted that the statute is to be interpreted broadly, but is also limited by three judicially-created exceptions that are not patent eligible: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

In determining whether something is patent eligible, Judge Lourie set forth a two-step process: (1) is the claimed invention a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, and, if so, (2) does it fall within one of the three judicially-created exceptions? He acknowledged that this determination is easier said than done.

To determine whether it falls within any of the exceptions, courts are to answer two more questions: (1) does the claim pose any risk of preempting an abstract idea, and, if so, (2) are there substantive limitations that narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that it does not preempt the full abstract idea?

Turning to the claims at issue, Judge Lourie broke them down into the “gist” of the invention and what, at heart, it was trying to claim. He concluded that all of the claims were attempting to claim the abstract idea of facilitating a trade through a third-party intermediary. In his opinion, none of the additional claim language provided any meaningful limitation on the claims.

Chief Judge Rader’s OPinion

Chief Judge Rader, joined in full by Judge Moore and in part by Judges Linn and O’Malley, would have held that the system claims are patent eligible, but the method and media claims are not (Judges Linn and O’Malley would have held that all the claims are patent eligible).

Chief Judge Rader focused on the judicially-created exceptions to § 101. Courts must determine whether a claim includes meaningful limitations that restrict the claim to an application, rather than claiming an abstract idea.  Claims are not meaningfully limited where it describes an abstract idea and simply adds “apply it” or if its purported limitations cover all possible ways to achieve the result.

A claim is meaningfully limited if it requires a particular machine to implement it or a particular transformation or where it adds limitations that are essential to the invention. “At bottom, where the claim is tied to a computer in such a way that the computer plays a meaningful role in the performance of the claimed invention, and the claim does not pre-empt virtually all uses of an underlying abstract idea, the claim is patent eligible.”

Chief Judge Rader cautioned that the patent-eligibility inquiry is different and distinct from other statutory requirements, such as non-obviousness, novelty, and enablement. Whether something is obvious is irrelevant to whether it is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. He also confirmed that the standard for proving a violation of § 101 is by clear and convincing evidence.

Taking this all together, he found that the system claims were directed to patent eligible subject matter—the claims recited a machine that performed specific transactions that was not a disembodied concept. However, the method and media claims he found to claim only an abstract concept.

Judge Moore’s Opinion

Judge Moore, joined by Judges Rader, Linn, and O’Malley, wrote to express her concern that Judge Lourie’s view would signal the end of all software patents as we know them. She believed that the five judges ignored precedent and have left the Court “irreconcilably fractured.”  She called for the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the issue.

She would have held that the system claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, as they include limitations relating to hardware and software, and were not limited to abstract ideas.

Judge Newman’s Opinion

Judge Newman, writing for herself, believed that the Court was overanalyzing the requirements of § 101. She stated that the inquiry should be simple and straightforward—does the invention fall within one of the four types of inventions allowed? If so, the patent-eligibility analysis ends and the other requirements for patentability kick in to determine whether a patent should be granted.

She also wrote to explicitly confirm that study and experimental use is not patent infringement. She was concerned that too many commentators were wrongly stating that patents would prevent individuals from conducting research or evaluating patented inventions.

Experimental use—such as experiments to (1) improve or build on patented subject matter, (2) compare patented subject matter with alternatives, (3) understand its mechanism, and (4) find new applications or modifications—is not infringement, regardless of whether it is for scientific knowledge or commercial potential.

Judge Linn’s Opinion

Judge Linn, joined by Judge O’Malley, would have found all of the claims to be directed to patent-eligible subject matter.

First Judge Linn was concerned that no claim construction was ever done in this case. The parties did agree that all of the claims required a computer to implement them. Having created this explicit tie to a machine, the claims were not directed to an abstract idea. He had grave concerns that the Court was rewriting the claims and ignoring limitations in order to distill down some essence of the claim, which he believed was improper.

Chief Judge Rader’s “Additional Reflections”

Chief Judge Rader also wrote some official “additional reflections,” which is highly unusual. He reflected on how the positions of the Judges have changed over the last 25 years, even though § 101 has not changed at all in that time period. He also reflected on the chaos of this opinion before concluding that “When all else fails, consult the statute!”

COnclusions—What to Make of All of This?

As a practical matter, this decision provides no precedential value. No rationale was able garner a majority of the Court. What it does signal is that the Federal Circuit cannot, at this, decide what to do with software patents. Five of the Judges (Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna, and Wallach) appear hostile to software patents, while the other five (Rader, Moore, Linn, O’Malley, and Newman) are more receptive. Truly, one’s panel draw could be outcome determinative on appeals involving software patents.

Given the chaos, one could reasonably expect that the Supreme Court will have to step in and provide some clarity. Although, given its track record, even if it does grant cert on this case, it still might not provide clear guidance.

For some other, interesting views on this decision, see our friends at IPWatchdog (here, here, here, and here) and Patently-O (here).

Federal Circuit to Reconsider De Novo Claim Construction Review–Lighting Ballast Control Order

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C. ()

Federal CircuitOn March 15, 2013, the Federal Circuit issued an order in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp, Case No. 2012-1014, -1015, stating that an en banc panel of the Court will consider whether and to what extent it should afford any deference to a district court’s patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit is determining whether it will overrule its prior decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

The Supreme Court, in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), determined that claim construction is a matter of law exclusively for the courts, and is not a factual matter for juries (although it did recognize that claim construction is somewhat of a “mongrel,” having aspects that are both legal and factual). In Cybor, the Federal Circuit considered what the implication of that finding would be on how it, as an appellate court, would review a trial court’s construction of the claims in a patent. It concluded that because claim construction is a matter of law, it would review a district court’s construction of the terms in a patent de novo, meaning without any deference to the lower court’s conclusion. This has been the state of the law for some time now.

The implications of the Cybor decision are significant to patent holders and those accused of infringement. As a practical matter, parties to a lawsuit have come to view a district court’s claim construction as a somewhat intermediate position. After all, if the Federal Circuit will give no deference to the district court’s conclusions, there is a significant possibility that those conclusions could be reversed on appeal. Fair or not, the perception of the Federal Circuit among some practitioners is that a trial court’s claim construction only has a 50/50 chance of being affirmed on appeal. (For some interesting studies of Federal Circuit reversal rates, see here, here, and here). Many have complained that this uncertainty discourages settlement, because the “losing” side on the claim construction issue often feels that it will be “vindicated” on appeal.

On the other hand, by having the Federal Circuit have the “final say” on claim construction, it promotes more consistency and, hopefully, better results, as the Federal Circuit is often far more familiar with claim construction issues than many district courts and they (and their clerks) are often better versed in the technologies described in these patents.

Patent holders are also fearful that if claim construction is not reviewed de novo, an unfavorable claim construction by a district court may be very difficult to overcome and could affect how a particular term is construed in other patents held by the patentee. If the Federal Circuit has the final say, a patentee has more options. For instance, it can appeal to the Federal Circuit a get a fresh look at the issue, or it can settle the case with a realistic hope that the Federal Circuit in a later case would not be particularly beholden to how a district court in a previous case construed a claim term.

Thus, this case will be particularly important for parties in patent litigation. It will be very interesting to listen to the oral argument in the Lighting Ballast case and see what the Federal Circuit ultimately decides. This may, in the end, be another issue that the Supreme Court will decide to weigh in on.

Federal Circuit Grants En Banc Rehearing in McKesson to Decide Joint Infringement Standard

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

Yesterday, in McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp. (No. 2010-1291), the Federal Circuit granted McKesson’s petition for a rehearing en banc regarding the standards for joint infringement of a patent. This order comes just a little over a month after the Court granted a similar petition for a rehearing en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (No. 2009-1372), which we discussed in an earlier post.

The Federal Circuit has apparently taken a special interest in the appropriate standards for imposing liability for joint infringement of a patent. Yesterday’s order expands the scope of the previous order and seeks briefing on two new issues:

  1. “If separate entities each perform separate steps of a method claim, under what circumstances, if any, would either entity or any third party be liable for inducing infringement or for contributory infringement? See Fromson v. Advance Offset Plate, Inc., 720 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983).”
  2. “Does the nature of the relationship between the relevant actors—e.g., service provider/user; doctor/patient—affect the question of direct or indirect infringement liability?”

The first question is almost identical to that posed in Akamai, but it phrases the question in terms of inducing infringement or contributory infringement, whereas the one posed in Akamai was directed to direct infringement. By doing so, the Federal Circuit will be addressing all potential forms of joint infringement of method claims. The second question expands the scope to address the question of the relationship between the parties, which was central to the Akamai panel’s determination that joint infringement requires some form of an agency relationship.

The underlying case

McKesson owns a patent directed to a method of communication between healthcare providers and patients that involves personalized web pages. Epic is a software company that developed a web-based software package that it licenses to healthcare providers to allow patients to view their medical records, scheduling information, and treatment plans.

The parties agreed that no single party performed every step of the allegedly infringed method claim, rather, the patients performed some steps and the medical provider performed others. Nonetheless, McKesson argued that Epic was liable under an induced infringement theory, which requires a direct infringer. McKesson argued that Epic’s customers (the doctors/healthcare providers) controlled or directed their patients to perform the missing steps in the claim, so that Epic directly infringed under a joint infringement theory.

Recognizing that there was no agency relationship between doctors and their patients, McKesson argued that the special nature of the doctor/patient relationship should also be sufficient to support joint infringement. The Court disagreed, finding no agency relationship or other contractual relationship under the standards discussed in Akamai. The Court then affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Epic.

Federal Circuit Dramatically Overhauls Inequitable Conduct Defense in En Banc Therasense Decision

by: Robert Wagner, intellectual property attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton, P.C.

The Federal Circuit yesterday issued its en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. that significantly changes the law of inequitable conduct. The 6-1-4 decision (written by Judge Rader, with a concurrence in part by Judge O’Malley and a dissent by Judge Bryson) creates bright-line rules for establishing the defense of inequitable that appear, as a practical matter, to almost eliminate this defense except in the most egregious (and likely difficult to prove) cases. In addition, under the Court’s decision, proving invalidity may be a precursor to a finding of inequitable conduct, thereby rendering this defense somewhat redundant. Below is a summary of the key points of the decision, along with a discussion of the consequences going forward.

The Defense of Inequitable Conduct

An accused infringer raising the defense of inequitable conduct must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patentee misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent to deceive the PTO.

The Intent Element

To prevail on this defense, the accused infringer must prove that the patentee acted with the specific intent to deceive the PTO. Gross negligence or negligence are not sufficient. And, in the case of non-disclosure, the accused infringer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patentee made a deliberate decision to withhold a known material reference—that is, he knew of the reference, knew it was material, and deliberately decided to withhold it.

Intent and materiality are separate requirements. There is no “sliding scale,” and courts cannot infer intent solely from materiality. Therefore, proving that a patentee knew of a reference, should have known of its materiality, and decided not to submit it to the PTO does not prove specific intent to deceive.

Intent can be inferred from indirect and circumstantial evidence, but the specific intent to deceive must be the “single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence.”

The patentee need not offer any good faith explanation for its conduct until the accused infringer proves a threshold level of intent to deceive by clear and convincing evidence.

The Materiality Element

The Court rejected the standard of materiality defined in PTO Rule 1.56. Instead, it adopted a “but-for” materiality test.

“But-for” materiality must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, so an accused infringer must show that the PTO would not have allowed a claim if it had been aware of the undisclosed art. However, in making this determination, the court is to employ the PTO’s standard of patentability, not the judicial standard. Therefore, the court should apply the preponderance of the evidence standard used by the PTO and give claims their broadest reasonable construction. This creates a potential situation where a claim might not be invalid under an anticipation/obviousness defense at trial, but still could have been rejected by the PTO during prosecution.

“But-for” materiality is not required for affirmative acts of egregious misconduct, such as submitting false affidavits. However, the nondisclosure of prior art and the failure to mention prior art in an affidavit are not egregious misconduct. This type of misconduct still requires “but-for” materiality.

Continue reading