or software ... for operating the telephone system” was a material misrepresentation. 2. Intent Cingular, as the party seeking to establish inequitable conduct, bore the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that applicants specifically intended to deceive the PTO in making the misrepresentation in the Background. Star Scientific, 537 F.3d at 1365; Larson Mfg., 559 F.3d at 1340. Although intent to deceive can be inferred from circumstantial evidence, the evidence must still be clear and convincing; “a showing of materiality alone does not give rise to a presumption of intent to deceive.” Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 1306, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2008); see also Kingsdown Med. Consultants v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed.Cir.1988) (en banc in relevant part) (<HOLDING>). Any inference of deceptive intent must be
holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action holding that negligence does not violate the due process clause but reserving the question whether gross negligence does holding that even  gross negligence does not of itself justify an inference of intent to deceive holding that amendment made as of right under mpep weighs against an inference of intent to deceive recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence