examiner during the prosecution of the '198 patent. 12 . The only evidence cited by Spire to support this contention regarding Dr. Ross is a letter indicating that Dr. Ross was sent two free samples of the Pourchez RetrO. 13 . I note that I will grant Spire’s motion to file a reply brief (Dkt. No. 47) in support of its motion to amend. 14 . In addition, I reject Arrow’s contention that Spire's proposed counterclaim fails to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). Arrow objects that Spire refers to the '198 patent inventors as "the patentees” in its proposed counterclaim, rather than identifying them by name. Given that there is no dispute as to the identify of the '198 patent applicants, I find no merit to this objection. See MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc., 271 F.Supp.2d 762, 772 (D.Md. 2003) (<HOLDING>), vacated, on other grounds, 549 U.S. 1163, 127
holding that specifying the persons responsible for inequitable conduct as the applicants satisfied the particularity pleading requirements of fedrcivp 9b holding that where the conduct of a defendant is privileged plaintiff bears burden of pleading and proving that the defendants conduct was unjustified or malicious holding the defendant responsible for the greater of the actual or intended loss holding that  9613f1 is the exclusive vehicle for responsible parties to obtain contribution from other responsible parties holding plaintiff responsible for attorney error