The Federal Circuit added a new "who" factor that must be considered in cases of inequitable conduct. Specifically, the court interpreted Rule 56 to include individuals who are "substantively involved" in preparing or prosecuting a patent application, beyond just inventors or patent counsel. In Avid Identification Systems v. Crystal Import Corporation, the court found that a company president was "substantively involved" due to his role in overseeing research and patent matters, interactions with patent counsel, responsibility for prior art, and credibility issues in his testimony. This expands the scope of individuals whose conduct can be relevant to determining inequitable conduct.