the courts with arguments relating to every minor transgression they could comb from the file wrapper. This deluge would only detract focus from the important legal issues to be resolved — primarily, infringement and invalidity. We wish to stress, however, as we did in Magnivision, that where the procedural irregularity involves an “affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent to deceive,” it may rise to the level of inequitable conduct, and is redressible under that framework. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs., 512 F.3d 1363, 1378 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); cf. Ferguson Beauregard/Logic Controls v. Mega Sys., LLC, 350 F.3d 1327, 1343-44 (Fed.Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). We acknowledge that section 282 is not the
holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses holding that a complaint must plead enough facts to raise a right to relief above the speculative level and state a plausible claim holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983 holding that a party is unjustly enriched where under the circumstances it would be inequitable for the party to retain a benefit for which it has not provided value holding that accused infringer did not state valid claim for relief for improper revival following nonpayment of main tenance fee where it failed to plead inequitable conduct