Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for a patent holder to continue to mark with an expired but previously applicable patent.” Document No. 31 at 18. In support of this proposition, Pro Patch cites two cases, neither of which holds that marking a product with an expired patent can never constitute a violation of § 292. See Arcadia Mach. & Tool Inc. v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc., 786 F.2d 1124, 1125 (Fed.Cir.1986) (upholding district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of patent holder who had marked his products with an expired patent, stating that "[p]aramount is the [district] court's finding and conclusion that Arcadia had totally failed, after at least nine months of discovery, to produce any evidence of intent to deceive the public.”); FMC Corp. v. Control Solutions, Inc., 369 F.Supp.2d 539, 584 (E.D.Pa.2005) (<HOLDING>). It is self evident that once a patent has 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that copyright infringement defendant failed to prove the affirmative defense of unclean hands which was based on the patent holders marking of its product with an expired patent because there was no evidence that the patent holder had acted with the requisite intent to deceive (B) holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement (C) holding that knowledge of the patent is required for willful infringement (D) holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent (E) holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent
Output (English): holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent