"PQA's raison d'etre was to harm VLSI and from the outset of this case, it engaged in egregious misconduct to that end." - VLSI Response Brief
"Failure to Respond to Mandated Discovery was 'Legitimate Objection' to Novel Process"
"PQA argued that it could not have harmed VLSI by failing to respond to USPTO interrogatories on PQA's own potential infringement liability, other real parties in interest, and whether PQA conditioned its actions in the proceedings based on payments from interested parties."
[
add
]
[
|
|
...
]