in the statute. This is not a tenable reading of the statute, and is indeed contrary to precedent. The Supreme Court cases interpreting the safe harbor make clear that the safe harbor is not limited to acts which only produce information for the FDA but protects all acts, even interim research steps and acts that might produce other useful data, "as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the [act] will produce the types of information that are relevant to [a submission to the FDA].” Merck, 545 U.S. at 208, 125 S.Ct. 2372. We have interpreted this language of the safe harbor to allow alleged infringers to use “data from tests for more than FDA approval,” such as for fund raising and other business purposes. Abtox, Inc. v. Exitron Corp., 122 F.3d 1019, 1030 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). RADER, Chief Judge, dissenting. By
holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument holding that in the context of a bloekburger double jeopardy analysis proof of the specific intent to kill is not required in a malicious wounding case because code  18251  which requires proof that the accused had the intent to maim disfigure disable or mu  uses the disjunctive or in its description of the required intent for that offense holding that application of the rape shield law to a case in which the underlying events occurred prior to the enactment of the rape shield law was not a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant holding that the alleged infringers intent or alternate uses of test data are irrelevant to its qualification to invoke the section 271e1 shield