(2) the applicant knew of the information [and] ... knew or should have known of the materiality of the information; and (8) the applicant has not provided a credible explanation for the withholding.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc. 543 F.3d 1306, 1314 (Fed.Cir.2008) (internal quotations and citations omitted). A failure to disclose the true inventorship of a patent is certainly a material omission. See, e.g., Board of Education ex rel. Florida State University v. American Bioscience, Inc., 333 F.3d 1330, 1344 (Fed.Cir. 2003) (a patent applicant has a duty to assure that “only true inventors” are named in a patent application and that failure to do so may result in a finding of inequitable conduct); Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. PMR Techs., Ltd., 292 F.3d 1363 (Fed.Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, viewing all the aforementioned
recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole holding that endangering conduct need not be engaged in in the childs presence holding that parratt does apply to intentional conduct if the conduct is unauthorized holding that the district court erred in not making an inequitable conduct determination prior to ruling on the exceptional case issue holding a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct where two named inventors deliberately concealed a true inventors involvement in the conception of the invention and engaged in a pattern of intentional conduct designed to deceive the attorneys and patent office as to who the true inventors were