Therefore, General Cigar may not rely on the interviews to show conduct supporting its acquiescence and estoppel claims. ■ Finally, silence may constitute cause for equitable estoppel if a duty to speak exists. Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Assoc., 274 F.3d 706, 725-26 (2d Cir.2001). A duty to speak may arise if the party’s silence will mislead the infringer into believing that an infringement claim will not be asserted. General Elec. Capital Corp. v. Eva Armadora, S.A., 37 F.3d 41, 45 (2d Cir.1994) (“Silence in the face of an explicit contrary assumption by an innocent party may constitute a concealment of facts or a false representation for estoppel purposes.”); Forest Laboratories Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 96 Civ. 159-A, 1999 WL 33299123, at * 22 (W.D.N.Y. June 23, 1999) (<HOLDING>). Cubatabaco’s silence lasted from January 1994
holding that a city was equitably estopped from denying the accuracy of blueprints and specifications given to a party who had been contracted to build a sewer for the city holding party was estopped by silence holding that licensee was not estopped from challenging the validity of a trademark holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding that a party was not judicially estopped from departing from a claim construction theory unsuccessfully advocated before the trial court