This paragraph has led courts to include a "why" element in the analysis of inequitable conduct pleadings. See, e.g., Teva Neuroscience, Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 10-5078, 2011 WL 741250, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2011); Dura Operating Corp. v. Magna Int'l, No. 10-11566, 2011 WL 869372, at *10-11 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 10, 2011); Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of the Univ. of Pa., No. 10-CV-02037, 2011 WL 1936136, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2011); SynQor v. Atesyn Techs., Inc., No. 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 3860131, at *7-8 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2010), adopted by No. 2:07-CV-497-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 3860154 (E.D. Tex. Sep 28, 2010). But see Johnson Outdoors Inc. v. Navico, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 1198-99 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (holding there is no "why" requirement at the pleading stage); Lincoln Nat'l Life v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., No. 1:07-CV-265, 2010 WL 1781013, at *6-7 (N.D. Ind. May 3, 2010) (collapsing "why" element into "how" element).
1. Materiality Prong-Misrepresentation of Material FactInequitable conduct allegations typically center on the failure of a patent applicant to disclose relevant prior art. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc. v. Trustees of the Univ. of Pa., No. 10-CV-02037-LHK, 2011 WL 1936136, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2011). In this case, however, there is no allegation of a failure to disclose a prior art reference.