alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

DANIEL L. FLAMM, Appellant

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, I NC., INTEL CORPORATION, GLOBALF OUNDRIES U.S., INC.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS COMPANY, LTD., Appellees

______________________

2018

- 2384, 2018

- 2385

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No s . IPR2017

- 00392, IPR2017

- 00406, IPR2017

- 01747, IPR2017

- 01748.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

R OLF S TADHEIM

, Stadheim & Grear, Scottsdale, AZ, argued for appellant.

J ARED B OBROW

, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Menlo Park, CA, argued for appellees Micron Technology, Inc., Intel Corporation and GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S.,

Inc. Appellee Micron Technology, Inc. also represented by

J EREMY J ASON L ANG ; M ELANIE L. B OSTWICK , Washington,DC.

C HAD S. C AMPBELL , Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for appellee Intel Corporation. Also represented by T YLER R.

B OWEN ; D AN L. B AGATELL , Hanover, NH; P HILIP A LCIDE
M ORIN , San Diego, CA; J ONATHAN L. M C F ARLAND , Seattle,

WA.

S HAMITA E TIENNE

- C UMMINGS , White & Case LL P, Washington, DC, for appellee GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S., Inc. Also represented by D AVID T ENNANT

.

N AVEEN M ODI , Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, for appellee Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST

, Chief Judge, P LAGER and

S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

September 6, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 3.5



             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                           (AFTER ISSUANCE OF STOCK)


                  P.D.C. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIES, INC. #13937-94
                  --------------------------------------------
                              NAME OF CORPORATION


The undersigned:                Sandra Sowers
                ------------------------------------------------------------ and
                          President or Vice President

           Sandra Sowers                     P.D.C. Innovative Industries, Inc.
-------------------------------------- of -------------------------------------
             Secretary                             Name of Corporation

Do hereby certify:

         That the Board of Directors of said Corporation at a meeting duly
convened, held on the 6th day of July 2000, adopted a resolution to amend the
original articles as follows:

         Article 3 is hereby amended to read as follows:

CAPITAL STOCK. The amount of the total authorized capital stock of this
corporation is 100,000,000 shares of Common Stock with par value of 0.001 each.
Each share shall have one (1) vote. Such stock may be issued from time to time
without action by the shareholders for such consideration as may be fixed from
time to time by the Board of Directors, and shares so issued, the full
consideration for which has been paid or delivered, shall be deemed the full
paid-up stock, and the holder of such shares shall not liable for any further
payment thereof. Said stock shall not be subject assessment to pay the debts of
the corporation, and no paid up-stock and no stock issued as fully paid, shall
ever be assessed or assessable by the corporation.

         The number of share of the corporation outstanding and entitled to vote
on an Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation is 28,750,121; that said
change(s) and amendment have been consented to and approved by a majority vote
of the stockholders holding at least a majority of each class of stock
outstanding entitled to vote thereon.

                                       /s/ Sandra Sowers
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Sandra Sowers, President

                                       /s/ Sandra Sowers
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Sandra Sowers, Secretary


STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF BROWARD

Before me, the Undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared Sandra Sowers,
who, being personally known to me, who acknowledged that she executed the above
instrument.


/s/                                   My Commission Expires:
------------------------------                               -------------------
Notary Public State of Florida
<PAGE>   1

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                          THE SPORTS CLUB COMPANY, INC.


                           401(k) PROFIT SHARING PLAN
                            ADOPTED FEBRUARY 29, 1996



        By action taken February 9, 2000, the Board of Directors of The Sports
Club Company, Inc. approved the following amendment to The Sports Club Company,
Inc. 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan:


                Exhibit 2, Sections 2(a)(1) and 2(a)(2) of the Adoption
        Agreement are hereby amended by deleting "1 Year of Eligibility Service"
        and substituting "6 Months from Employment Date", in lieu thereof; and
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1196, -1197

TILLOTSON CORPORATION,

Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

and

CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., CARDINAL HEALTH 200, INC.,

and CARDINAL HEALTH MALAYSIA 211 SDN. BHD.,

Intervenors,

and

SMART GLOVE HOLDINGS, SDN. BHD.,

SMART GLOVE CORPORATION SDN. BHD., HENRY SCHEIN, INC.,

and HSI GLOVES, INC.,

Intervenors.

On appeal from the United States International Trade Commission

in Investigation Nos. 337-TA-608 and 612.

ON MOTION

Before MAYER, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The International Trade Commission moves for a 30-day extension of time, until

August 13, 2009, to file its brief. The Tillotson Corporation opposes.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 16 2009

/s/ Jan Horbalv

Date

	

Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc:	William D. Belanger, Esq.

Paul M. Bartkowski, Esq.

U.S. ILM

. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

s20

Paul F. Brinkman, Esq.

Scott M. Daniels, Esq. JUL 16 2009

JAN HOKBat

CLERK

2009-1196, -1197	2
Exhibit 8.1



List of Subsidiaries



|Particulars                                 |  | Country of incorporation |  | 2015 (%) |     |  | 2014 (%) |  |     | 2013 (%) | 
|------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------ |  | -------- | --- |  | -------- |  | --- | -------- | 
|Pace Info Com Park Private Limited          |  | India                    |  |          | -   |  |          |  | 100 |          | 
|Sify Technologies (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.     |  | Singapore                |  |          | 100 |  |          |  | 100 |          | 
|Sify Technologies North America Corporation |  | United States            |  |          | 100 |  |          |  | 100 |          |
www.nasa.gov

ELECTRIFIED POWERTRAIN FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION
#### Comparet and Others *v.*The State.—In error.

*Saturday, December*6.

IF in a suit on a bond, there be a variance between the

date of the bond described in the declaration, and that of the bond produced on *oyer,*the variance is fatal. *Cooke*v. *Graham’s*adm’r, 3 Crunch, 229.
Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130606 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. STEVEN JAMES, Personal Representative Stephen J. Markman, of the Estate of MARJORIE JAMES, Justices Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130606 

 COA: 262622 

Jackson CC: 03-006278-NH 

PHILLIP RICHARDS, M.D., and KHAWAJA 

IKRAM, M.D.,

 Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

W. A. FOOTE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

YOUNG, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in the majority's decision to deny leave to appeal. I write separately 

because I am disturbed by the analysis the Court of Appeals employed in justifying its 

decision to reverse the trial court's summary disposition order. The statute at issue in this 

case, MCL 600.2912d(1), requires a medical malpractice plaintiff to file an affidavit of 

merit with his complaint. In Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand)1

, this 

1 470 Mich 679 (2004). 
 _________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

2 

2

Court discussed the adequacy requirements for notices of intent under MCL 600.2912b. 

Despite the striking similarities between the notice of intent statute and the affidavit of 

merit statute, the Court of Appeals held that differing "policy considerations" made an 

application of Roberts unwarranted. Indeed the panel made its "policy considerations" 

known by holding that "unlike the court in Roberts, we do not need to read additional 

requirements or limitations into the [affidavit of merit] statute to aid its rational 

application or workability." 

Simply stated, the Court of Appeals erred by not applying Roberts to this case.2 

The panel did not provide adequate justification for its decision to disregard Roberts, but 

merely relied on "policy considerations" as a subterfuge for its obvious disagreement 

with Roberts. While the Court of Appeals is not required to agree with this Court's 

decisions, it is required to properly apply those decisions. However, because the Court of 

Appeals opinion is unpublished and has no precedential value, this Court's intervention is 

unwarranted at this time. 

 Moreover, the Court of Appeals ignored this Court's remand order in Mullaney v 

Kistler, 471 Mich 932 (2004), where this Court remanded back to the Court of Appeals a 

case dealing with the sufficiency of an affidavit of merit specifically instructing the Court 

of Appeals to reconsider the case in light of Roberts. 

l0723 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

July 30, 2007 

 Clerk
www.nasa.gov

SP-2022-06-600-KSC

Your established provider of a commercial launch experience

and targeted services, LSP guides your team to mission success

by procuring a unique and customized ride to space,

allowing you to focus on what matters most...

Your spacecraft, the science, your precious cargo!
CENTER OF SCIENCE & INDUSTRY, COLUMBUS

The NASA Learning Lunchbox : Feeding 

STEM Diversity and Serving Underserved 

Youth with NASA Artemis and the James 

Webb Telescope Across the Nation

Stephen White

2/09/22 - 7/11/24

The "NASA Learning Lunchbox" are kits being 

distributed across the nation to highlight the STEM 

behind Artemis and the James Webb Telescope 

through five (5) fun, hands-on activities with learning 

content around the topic of space - showcasing the 

diversity of STEM at NASA, while directly engaging 

underserved youth in urban and rural communities. 

COSI partners with NASA Facilities and Centers to 

distribute 30,000 NASA Learning Lunchboxes across 

the U.S. using its roadshow model at local foodbanks 

through an innovative, community-based model that 

brings together other science centers/museums, 

afterschool providers, and community leaders to 

highlight the important of STEM in their own backyards 

as well as across the country.

List of Partners:

Learning Lunchboxes ready for distribution • NASA Centers and Facilities

Credits: COSI The material contained in this document is based upon 

work supported by a NASA grant or cooperative 

agreement award #80NSSC22M0102, under the Teams 

Engaging Affiliated Museums and Informal Institutions 

(TEAM II) activity of NASA’s Next Gen STEM Project.

Explore TEAM II Products 

https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/search/

www.nasa.gov
```

                                                                      Exhibit 12

STONEPATH GROUP, INC.
Computation of the Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
Regulation S-K Item 503(d)
                                                                        Year Ended
                                                                    December 31, 2003
Earnings
     Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations
       before minority interests or income/(loss) from
       equity investees                                                   $ 6,278,520
     Add: Fixed charges                                                     2,764,851
     Add: Amortization of capitalized interest                                      -
     Add: Distributed income of equity investees                                    -
     Add: Share of pre-tax losses of equity investees                               -

     Less: Interest capitalized                                               (47,500)

     Less: Preference security dividend requirements of
       consolidated subsidiaries                                                    -
     Less: Minority interest in pre-tax income of subsidiaries
       that have not incurred fixed charges                                  (187,310)
                                                                          -----------
                                         Total Earnings                   $ 8,808,561
                                                                          ===========

Fixed Charges
     Interest expensed and capitalized                                    $   189,359
     Add: Amortized premiums, discounts and capitalized
       expenses related to indebtedness                                       116,796
     Add: Estimate of the interest within rental expense (a)                2,458,696
     Add: Preference security dividend requirements of
       consolidated subsidiaries (pre-tax)                                          -

                                                                          -----------
                                         Total Fixed Charges              $ 2,764,851
                                                                          ===========
     Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
       preference dividends                                                      3.19
                                                                          ===========

     (a) Total rent expense                                               $ 7,450,594
            Percentage                                                            33%
                                                                          -----------
         Estimated interest portion of rent expense                       $ 2,458,696
                                                                          ===========
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 20

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase 

in the Federal minimum wage. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DODD, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. EDWARDS, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. 

BAYH, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BYRD, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CARPER, Mr. 

CORZINE, Mr. DAYTON, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, 

Mr. KERRY, Mr. KOHL, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. 

REID, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. 

STABENOW, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mrs. 

BOXER, and Mr. PRYOR) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 

Pensions 

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide 

for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Minimum Wage 

5 Act of 2003’’. 
2

•S 20 IS 

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor 

3 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended 

4 to read as follows: 

5 ‘‘(1) except as otherwise provided in this sec6 tion, not less than—

7 ‘‘(A) $5.90 an hour, beginning on the 60th 

8 day after the date of enactment of the Fair 

9 Minimum Wage Act of 2003; and 

10 ‘‘(B) $6.65 an hour, beginning 12 months 

11 after that 60th day;’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

13 subsection (a) shall take effect 60 days after the date of 

14 enactment of this Act. 

15 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COM16 MONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 

17 ISLANDS. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6 of the Fair Labor 

19 Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the 

20 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

21 (b) TRANSITION.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), 

22 the minimum wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the 

23 Northern Mariana Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the 

24 Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) 

25 shall be—
3

•S 20 IS 

1 (1) $3.55 an hour, beginning on the 60th day 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act; and 

3 (2) increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser 

4 amount as may be necessary to equal the minimum 

5 wage under section 6(a)(1) of such Act), beginning 

6 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act 

7 and every 6 months thereafter until the minimum 

8 wage applicable to the Commonwealth of the North9 ern Mariana Islands under this subsection is equal 

10 to the minimum wage set forth in such section.

Æ
**Exhibit 99.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Fresh Choice, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 15, 2003, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David E. Pertl, Senior VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (“Section 906”), that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| July 17,  2003 |                                                |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|           | /s/ David E.  Pertl                                 |   |
|           | David E. Pertl                                      |
|           | Senior Vice  President and Chief Financial  Officer |

 

*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*

 

----
#### Bohannon et al. *v.*D. L. S. Shannon.

Answer Good as a Counterclaim.

An answer though not good as a bar to an action may be sufficient as a counterclaim.

APPEAL FROM SHELBY CIRCUIT COURT.

February 20, 1866.

It seems to this court the original answer, though not good as a bar to the action, is sufficient as a counterclaim, and that the demurrer to it should not have been sustained. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer, allow the plaintiffs to reply if they will, and for further proceedings.
****
 **Exhibit
12.1**
  **CERTIFICATIONS**
  I, Roy
Zisapel, certify that:
  1.
    I
      have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Radware Ltd.;
  2.
    Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;
  3.
    Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
  4.
    The
      Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and
      have:
  (a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
  (b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and
  (c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
company’s internal control over financial reporting; and
  5.
    The
      company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
      most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
      the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’s board of
      directors (or persons performing the equivalent
  functions):
  (a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and
 
 (b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial
reporting.
  Date:
April 13, 2005
 /s/
      Roy
      Zisapel
      Roy
      Zisapel
      Chief
      Executive Officer
      (Principal
      Executive Officer)
No. 87-1401.

#### Cargill, Inc. *v.*Charter International Oil Co.

C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to submit Rule 28.1 material under seal granted. Certiorari denied. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion and this petition.