Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): (Fed.Cir.1985). “Further, as an additional precaution against denying a party its chance to prove a worthy case, any doubt as to the presence or absence of disputed issues of material fact must be resolved in favor of the presence of disputed issues, or in other words in favor of the party opposing summary judgment.” Lemelson, 760 F.2d at 1261. The onus placed upon a movant for summary judgment on a claim of inequitable conduct is especially heavy, as the claim necessarily involves determinations as to the intent of the party accused of practicing the fraud and the materiality of his alleged misrepresentations or omissions—issues which are typically not appropriate for resolution in a summary fashion. Kangaroos U.S.A., Inc. v. Caldor, Inc., 778 F.2d 1571, 1573-74, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). B. Unenforceability Because of Inequitable 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument (B) holding the connection is an element (C) holding that by including a knowledge element in two sections of a statute the legislature demonstrated that it knew how to express its intent to require a knowledge element rendering the absence of the element in another statute supportive of the inference that the legislature did not intend for there to be a knowledge element (D) holding that specific intent is an element of attempted illegal reentry (E) holding that evaluation of the intent element of inequitable conduct is rarely enabled in summary proceedings
Output (English): holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument