Thank you for your reply.

You say,

I have not seen Hamilton’s declaration, so I don’t know what he said. But if he is the person who signed a false declaration, then he is the person who committed inequitable conduct.

Doesn't "intent" have to be proved?

you then say,

None of that has anything to do with the communication with Higgins and the privilege issues.

As Shaw and Hamilton worked for Higgins in prosecuting the patent for Fish and Moore, doesn't ACP also apply here?

Be Well