for the cause of action to exist. E. g., Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., D.Del.1966, 253 F.Supp. 461, 470. 25 . For example, technical fraud may involve presentation of a trademark that is invalid because generic, see Donald F. Duncan, Inc. v. Royal Tops Mfg. Co., supra, or non-material omission of prior art before the Patent Office because the patentee reasonably thinks it is not relevant, see Corning Glass Works v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co., supra, or procurement of a patent on an obvious innovation, see Crown Mach. & Tool Co. v. KVP-Sutherland Paper Co., N.D.Cal.1968, 297 F. Supp. 542. These matters are to be sharply distinguished from intentional fraud, which involves affirmative dishonesty. See American Cyanamid Co. v. FTC, 5th Cir. 1966, 363 F.2d 757, 768-772 (<HOLDING>). 26 . The trial court’s finding 19 states that
holding that a patentee can collect only one royalty from a patent infringement holding that there must be a causal connection between the alleged antitrust violation and the antitrust injury for there to be antitrust standing holding that recitals in land patent were affirmative evidence that patentee paid requisite price for land holding that after reading the patent a person of skill in the art would not understand the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it holding that ftc finding that patentee withheld evidence from the patent office authorized ftc to apply antitrust remedies