product, but instead were “experimental runs where [Defendant was] trying to find a way to run 36 inch wide product” rather than its usual 24-inch material. (Defendant’s Reply, Ex. C, Nicholson 9/10/2015 Deck at ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant further states, again without contradiction, that these test runs “did not work,” that it “immediately switched back to 43 IPM to make commercial product,” and that it has “run the line at that speed ever since.” (Id. at ¶ 7.) As the Federal Circuit has explained, “tests of an accused device under unusual conditions are not necessarily relevant to an infringement analysis.” Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also High Tech Medical Instrumentation, Inc. v. New Image Industries, Inc., 49 F.3d 1551, 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Finally, even if Defendant’s limited test
holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act holding under the circumstances that a criminal proceeding does not qualify as an alternate remedy under the federal fca holding that blood tests do not infringe significant privacy interests holding that immunity given judge under section 1983 does not inure to benefit of those accused of conspiring with him holding that an accused device that does not infringe under its intended configuration does not become infringing by being altered into an infringing configuration under unusual circumstances