Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2014/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:03:43+00:00

Document:
"The headline is not one any biofuel company would want to see"
See article captioned Industry Lashes Out at Corn Biofuel Study concerning a paper by Adam Liska that appeared in Nature Climate Change .
See story In Her Own Words at Inside Higher Ed which discusses the matter of Vanessa Ryan.
See AP story on take-home fertility test for men.
Reuters discussed the CAFC ruling on Friday, April 25, which "brought back" the suit by Apple against Google's Motorola Mobility Unite.
Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had been sitting by designation in ND Ill.
As to claim construction, most was affirmed, except as to Apple's '949. As to decisions on damages evidence, most was reversed.
per se rule that injunctions are unavailable for SEPs, it erred.
and was made in front of a foreign patent office.
er could not be clearer.
Supriya Bavadekar is alleging that Long Island University terminated her after she filed a patent application on a chemical from oregano used for treating prostate cancer.
In fact, the statute goes beyond merely omitting, and underscoring through its structure the omission of, a right to appeal the non-institution decision. It contains a broadly worded bar on appeal. Under the title, “No Ap- peal,” Section 314(d) declares that “[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” Id. § 314(d). That declaration may well preclude all review by any route, which we need not decide. It certainly bars an appeal of the non-institution decision here.
Though the parties in this case have argued about “standing,” the Supreme Court recently clarified that some issues often discussed in “standing” terms are better viewed as interpretations of a statutory cause of action. See Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386-88 (2014). Because the issue here focuses on § 141, this opinion directly addresses the scope of that cause of action. As Vaillancourt is not the owner of the ’221 patent, he cannot bring this appeal before the court, for lack of a cause of action. Accordingly, this court dismisses the appeal.
The controversy first began last year when Schlumberger's deputy general counsel for intellectual property, Charlotte Rutherford, left to take a job as senior vice president of Acacia Research Group LLC, which is one of the largest patent monetization firms.
In December, Acacia partnered with Plano-based Dynamic 3D Geosolutions LLC and then, in February, sued Schlumberger for patent infringement in federal court in Austin, Spivey said.
discusses the $45 billion (U.S.) joint offer of Valeant with U.S. activist investor Bill Ackman for Botox maker Allergan Inc.
“Rather than fighting each other in all areas, which hurts profit margins, big pharma companies will streamline their portfolios and specialize more to boost their bottom line,” Enrique Quemada, head of the Madrid-based advisory firm OnetoOne Corporate Finance, told Bloomberg.
The District Court of New Jersey made a finding of inequitable conduct against 3M Innovative Properties in the case Transweb v. 3M Innovative Properties, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54919.
The Court has reviewed the record in exhaustive detail. Inequitable conduct turns on the actions of individuals who owe a duty of candor to the PTO: whether those individuals knew of the prior art reference, knew it was material, knew that it should be disclosed, and intentionally failed to disclose it or misled the PTO about the reference. Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1290. The Court finds that the evidence of the inequitable conduct by Hanson and Jones is clear and convincing. See Avid Identification Sys., Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp., 603 F.3d 967, 974 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[O]nly individuals, rather than corporations, owe a duty of candor to the PTO," so "only individuals can breach that duty and give rise to a finding of inequitable conduct."). In this case, the actions of other 3M employees--Rousseau,28 Legare, Nagel, Lyons, and others--provide strong corroborating evidence of the inequitable conduct of Jones and Hanson. The Court, after receiving full post-trial briefing; conducting its own de novo review of all the facts in the case; after having observed the demeanor of the witnesses; and conducting its own credibility determinations based on those observations, finds that the '458 and '551 patents were the result of inequitable conduct by individuals who owed a duty of candor to the PTO. U.S. Patents 6,397,458 and 6,808,551 are unenforceable. The advisory jury unanimously reached the same conclusion.
John Reed, a 3M employee, circulated an email to numerous 3M employees including Rousseau and Legare, in which he wrote, "As a follow-up note to the meeting on April 20 with Transweb . . . Minimize direct contact with TransWeb. . . . Minimize written exchanges. Maximize verbal exchange of info . . . ." (PTX-1335.) The clear intent was to grill Ogale about the prior art, under the pretext of 3M becoming a big customer of TransWeb. In July 2000, 3M invited Ogale to return to Minneapolis with Richard Granville, his angel investor, and expressed its interest in purchasing the entire TransWeb company. (11/14/2012 P.M. Tr. at 61:16-62:19.) Those discussions fell apart.
At trial, Hanson struggled to explain his conduct. He testified that the reason for his delay in disclosing the reference, until November 2000, was to allow the Confidentiality Agreement between TransWeb and Racal--which he had terminated on April 28, 1999--to expire. But the very MPEP provision that Hanson cited to the PTO (when requesting expungement of his supplemental disclosure from the public record) states that a patentee must submit material information to the PTO even if it is confidential. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 724 (7th ed. July 1998). Hanson knew that the expungement provisions provide a method to protect truly confidential information, so this was not a credible explanation of the delay strategy. Hanson wilted on the witness stand, head down, and, finally, hostile. In the disclosure he finally gave to the Examiner, Hanson stated that "[a]pplicants do believe . . . that the product may have been subsequently commercialized by Transweb" after 3M's patent was filed.
Based on the evidence in this case, these statements were untrue. The only reasonable inference is that Hanson and Jones knew they were not true. When they rushed their own patent through the process, fudging the "witnessing" of the notebooks, they knew that 3M had been focused on TransWeb in advance of the Expo; they knew that TransWeb was at the Expo, distributing its prior art product; they knew that Sundet and Christensen had collected samples; Jones had tested the Racal samples cut from the same roll distributed at the Expo; Legare had PTX-1338 in his files, which was identical to the samples distributed by Ogale at the Expo; and when they were concerned that TransWeb's samples were in fact prior art, they ordered--and Jones tested--examples of the prior art as advertised in Nonwovens Industry, confirming that the samples were prior art. They did not disclose any of this information to the Examiner. No mention was made of the T-Melt 50P product, nor of the Willson P-95 filter material, nor of the PTX-1338 sample pack from the Expo that was in Legare's files. Regrettably, the only reasonable inference that explains the actions of Hanson and Jones is that they delayed in saying anything to the Examiner, and then finally made a materially misleading disclosure.
masks two strong and conflicting dissents.
antiandrogenic effect, and an antialdosterone effect.” Id.
on the use of the drug for that purpose alone.” Id.
method, both of which require using a 100-500 mL solution.
dosage is given in one bottle or two bottles.
adequate to support a judgment of infringement. Id.
performed the claimed method”); see also Broadcom Corp.
not always, embodies a claim nonetheless infringes.”).
extent the infringing method is used by consumers.”).
construe the claim as written . . . .”); Process Control Corp.
All a hypothetical plagiarist needs to do, to evade such software, is to make sure that no more than, say, any given three or four consecutive words are identical to their source. So they can copy and paste, so long as they, let’s say, change the word order a bit, add or remove some filler words like ‘the’, ‘and’, ‘but’, and replace a few words with synonyms. I call this text laundering.
(citing commentary of P.J. Federico).
Braithwaite, 379 F.2d 594, 601 (CCPA 1967).
claim 8 of the ’375 patent.
2011) and Brigham & Women’s Hosp. Inc. v. Teva Pharm.
and were not before the same patent examiner.
having a later priority date than the ’375 patent family.
application filed on December 29, 1995.
disclaimer in the application that led to the ’375 patent.
filed for the ’483 patent.
patent with claims for obvious modifications of the invention.
in the patent and all obvious variants of that invention.
"rights to make." Patents are rights to exclude.
patentee . . . are part of a carefully crafted bargain . . .
omitted)); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S.
consequences in this new race to the Patent Office.
that the asserted claims of the ’149 patent are not invalid.
drink several liters of a solution to induce diarrhea.
Claim construction is a question of law, Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976-79 (Fed. Cir.
Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454-55 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
health problems for the patient.” Id.
term “clinically significant electrolyte shifts” in the specification.
modification of the clear language found in the specification.
Hechter anticipates the asserted claims of the ’149 patent.
claims of the ’149 patent.
at the time of the invention.
amount of diarrhea is in this context.
authority under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
composition or use that has been approved by the FDA.
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Warner-Lambert Co. v.
stool from the bowels.” Claim Construction Order at *6.
colonoscopy in adults.” J.A. 5280.
the use of a specified volume of the composition.
Why did the Supreme Court take Teva v. Sandoz?
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review the case of Teva v. Sandoz. The legal issue is "what deference" is given to fact-finding by the district court. The science issue concerns measurement of molecular weight. The drug in question is Copaxone.
Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Rule 52(a) requires.
See Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
The question, as framed by Teva, gets at the enduring question of the CAFC's de novo review of claim construction of district courts. Under current law, the appellate court gives no deference to the district court on how a patent claim is construed. This approach has been questioned for years. But one wonders if the Teva v. Sandoz case is the right vehicle to resolve the question.
What was the "factual finding" at issue in the case?
The CAFC found "group I" claims, which recited "molecular weights" of 5 to 9 kilodaltons, to be ambiguous because these claims did not specify how to measure the molecular weights. The district court construed the claims to reflect the molecular weight measure Mp (peak average molecular weight). Viewed in this light, the CAFC merely observed the self-evident legal problem: the claim did not say "which measure" of molecular weight was intended. End of story.
That is, without going into any "facts," one observes that the claim itself does not specify "which" measure of molecular weight is to be be used. This ambiguity was specifically identified by the Examiner during prosecution of the '539 and '847 patents. One might have thought the Examiner would have required insertion into the respective claims of the specific molecular weight measure. However, the Examiner apparently accepted arguments without requiring an amendment to achieve clarity. For the '539 patent, Teva said it was peak average, but for the '847 patent it was weight average. The contradictory resolution is a self-evident problem.
The matter of "facts" in the case enters in with the testimony of Teva's expert, Dr. Grant. The gist of his argument seems to be that because only Mp can be read directly from a size exclusion curve, Mp must have been intended for the "group I" claims. One wonders "why" the ability to read a parameter directly from a graph is proof of "which parameter" was intended in a claim.
One also wonders why the Supreme Court took this case to begin to address the "de novo" review issue. When the standard for obviousness under 35 USC 103 was reviewed in KSR v. Teleflex, a very simple fact pattern existed. In the Teva case, one has some esoteric "molecular weight" issues, and some seemingly contradictory facts, which renders this case murky.
From a chemistry point of view, one of ordinary skill in the art knows that there are different measures of molecular weight, which give different results, and without guidance as to "which to use", one would not know the scope of the claim.
See earlier IPBiz post Teva prevails in Copaxone case, but was the case correctly decided?
and affirm the district court’s judgment and related rulings.
directly at the combinations claimed.
Michael J. Fox gets to say I may be a scum bag, but I'm your scum bag.
The NSA tap on Alicia (a three jump) is made known to Alicia and then Peter. Peter deals with it.
Initially, Peter calls a US Senator who denies the tap, but Peter proceeds to discuss confidential information on the phone and quickly realizes the Senator is lying. Then, the instigator of the tap is pranked by calls from suspicios Arab sounding people, and comes under suspicion.
The NSA contractor who disclosed the issue vanishes.
Within the post Riken affair boosts orders for anti-plagiarism software , one learns there has been increased interest in Japan for plagiarism detection software following the Obokata/STAP cell incident.
For example, part of a description of a method for karyotyping—examining the number and structure of chromosomes in a cell—was not only copied from a paper published by a separate group, but was also not consistent with the procedure actually followed by Obokata’s team. But the committee says Obokata had faithfully cited many other publications and couldn't recall where the text came from, so the committee found it impossible to call this misconduct.
Thus, although the copied method text was well-known, the real issue was that the copied method text was not descriptive of the method actually used. The greater "bad act" was the misrepresentation, not the copying without attribution.
"The reason universities patent basic research tools is to provide the incentive to develop it"
Within the post Broad Institute Gets Patent on Revolutionary Gene-Editing Method, Susan Young Rojahn gets into some patent issues associated with Feng Zhang's CRISPR patent which issued on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 [US Patent 8,697,359].
The patent, issued just six months after its application was filed, covers a modified version of the CRISPR-Cas9 system found naturally in bacteria, which microbes use to defend themselves against viruses. The patent also covers methods for designing and using CRISPR’s molecular components.
* There is mention of a pending patent application to Jennifer Doudna, who along with Zhang, is a co-founder of Editas.
The reason universities patent basic research tools is to provide the incentive to develop it, says Nelsen. Transforming such a technology into a medical treatment is an immensely expensive process, she says. “If you didn’t patent, that wouldn’t get done,” says Lita Nelsen [director of the MIT Technology Licensing Office ].
MIT does not go after academic scientists who produce lab-made versions of the molecular components for the gene-silencing technology, she says. If the Broad technology licensing office follows that example, then the new patents should not affect academics wanting to use the tool for basic research, says Nelsen. That would be good news, because CRISPR is thought to be a huge boon for biological science. For now, however, the Broad is keeping a tight lid on their plans for the patent.
Forbes: back to the past on "low quality patent" argument?
Over the years, however, the system has broken down in a number of ways. An overworked Patent and Trademark Office issued too many patents of questionable quality and in markets (software is the prime example) where the very idea of patentability is questionable. An explosion of low quality patents ignited an explosion of litigation, and today the legitimacy of IP itself is under assault.
evokes the long discredited analysis of Quillen and Webster. See 4 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 108 (2004-2005).
See Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 11 Fed. Cir. B.J. 1 (2001) [hereinafter Quillen I]; Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. et al., Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--Extended, 12 Fed. Cir. B.J. 35 (2002) [hereinafter Quillen II]; Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--Updated, 15 Fed. Cir. B.J. 635 (2006) [hereinafter Quillen III]; Cecil D. Quillen, Jr. & Ogden H. Webster, Continuing Patent Applications and Performance of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office--One More Time, 18 Fed. Cir. B.J. 379 (2009) [hereinafter Quillen IV]. See Quillen IV, at 380-83 and accompanying notes, for an overview of these previous Articles.
but does not cite any criticism of these articles.
See also 4 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 186 for the discussion of the infamous "footnote 22" in Mark A. Lemley and Kimberley L. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B. U. L. Rev. 63 (2004).
On Good Friday, April 18, 2014, Chief Justice Roberts, denied Teva a request for a stay in the Copaxone case, noting that he was not convinced Teva had shown the "likelihood of irreparable harm" if the application was denied, because if Teva wins the Supreme Court case it can seek damages from the generic companies for past infringement on its patents.
And Teva, well-known for attacking deficiencies in the patents of proprietaries, is in the position of defending against attacks for indefiniteness associated with definitions of molecular weight.
As to the group I claims, Teva had a problem because of arguments made in file histories. For one application, Teva argued molecular weight was Mp (peak average) but for another Mw (weight average). As the CAFC observed, Teva's two definitions cannot be reconciled. There was also an inconsistency within a figure as between the graph itself and the legend for the figure.
The rival companies had argued that granting a stay would effectively extend Teva’s monopoly for years to come. That’s because Teva is trying to switch existing Copaxone patients to a new formulation of the drug that has patent protection until 2030.
in its appeal of a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that invalidated the claim of U.S. Patent 5,800,808 (the “’808 patent”), [Roberts] denied the Company’s application to stay the Federal Circuit's decision due to the potential for the Company to recover patent infringement damages. The ‘808 patent expires on September 1, 2015 and claims a process for manufacturing the active ingredient of Teva’s relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) product, COPAXONE® (glatiramer acetate injection) 20mg/mL. Teva will continue pursuing its appeal in the Supreme Court and defending its intellectual property for COPAXONE®.
Teva previously prevailed in the District Court, which upheld the validity of nine COPAXONE® patents, including the ‘808 patent. A ruling last year by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld some of the COPAXONE® patents that expire in May 2014, while invalidating the ‘808 patent that is the subject of Teva’s now-granted certiorari petition.
Any purported generic version of COPAXONE® would be required to obtain the approval of the Food and Drug Administration prior to being made available to the public. The inability to fully characterize the active ingredients of the product leads many experts to believe that the only way to ensure the safety, efficacy and immunogenicity of any purported generic version of COPAXONE® would be through full-scale, placebo-controlled clinical trials with measured clinical endpoints (such as relapse rate) in RRMS patients.
The Company is confident COPAXONE® will remain a proprietary, global market leading product for the reduction in the frequency of relapses in RRMS patients over the product’s lifecycle, given the strength of its intellectual property rights.
Teva recruited a predecessor of Sanofi-Aventis to help sell its multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone. Sanofi-Aventis, Annual Report (Form 20-F), at 61 (Mar. 7, 2008); Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Annual Report (Form 20-F), at 20 (Mar. 31, 2001).
IPBiz examined the "trade secret" exemption to FOIA requests in the post Wyoming Supreme Court adopts FOIA definition of "trade secret" in "public records" dispute In the case American Tradition Institute v. University of Virginia , the Virginia Supreme Court adopted an expansive definition to the meaning of "proprietary" which gives broad scope to exemptions from Virginia's "Freedom of Information" law.
related to climate researcher Michael Mann.
At trial, the court adopted the meaning in Green.
definition of "proprietary" upon which we may rely.
institutions for over a century . . . .
of Simon the Court credited related to [financial] "competitive advantage,"
rather than to the Green definition of "proprietary."
The decision does not say "who paid for"
There is a problem with the Green definition of "proprietary"
into some issues with federally-funded research.
Under a grant, the investigators typically have an obligation to submit reports, including a final report, and there may be requirements for delivery of data as well. However, there typically is not a requirement to publish results.
not publicly released but obligated for disclosure to a governmental body?
Separately, the text of Simon argues that a limited definition of "proprietary"
to a private school (e.g., Duke). But taxpayers pay for what goes on at the public school.
directed to patentable subject matter.
which has as inventors Chan; Alistair K.; (Bainbridge Island, WA) ; Duncan; William D.; (Kirkland, WA) ; Gates; William; (Redmond, WA) ; Gerrity; Daniel A.; (Seattle, WA) ; Holman; Paul; (Seattle, WA) ; Hyde; Roderick A.; (Redmond, WA) ; Jung; Edward K.Y.; (Las Vegas, NV) ; Kare; Jordin T.; (Seattle, WA) ; Levien; Royce A.; (Lexington, MA) ; Lord; Richard T.; (Tacoma, WA) ; Lord; Robert W.; (Seattle, WA) ; Malamud; Mark A.; (Seattle, WA) ; Myhrvold; Nathan P.; (Bellevue, WA) ; Rosema; Keith D.; (Olympia, WA) ; Tegreene; Clarence T.; (Mercer Island, WA) ; Wood, JR.; Lowell L.; (Bellevue, WA) .
Although the assignee is "ELWHA LLC ", one notes IV patent attorney Tegreene is one of the inventors.
1. A system for detecting and responding to an intruding camera, comprising: an electronic media display device having a screen configured to display content; a sensor; and a processing circuit configured to: obtain information from the sensor; analyze the information to determine a presence of a camera; and edit any displayed content in response to the presence of the camera.
In a post titled The Harvard-MIT genomic science institute trumpets its claims to an important genome editing technology , the MIT Tech Review talked glowingly about US Patent 8,697,359.
A method of altering expression of at least one gene product comprising introducing into a eukaryotic cell containing and expressing a DNA molecule having a target sequence and encoding the gene product an engineered, non-naturally occurring Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)--CRISPR associated (Cas) (CRISPR-Cas) system comprising one or more vectors comprising: a) a first regulatory element operable in a eukaryotic cell operably linked to at least one nucleotide sequence encoding a CRISPR-Cas system guide RNA that hybridizes with the target sequence, and b) a second regulatory element operable in a eukaryotic cell operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a Type-II Cas9 protein, wherein components (a) and (b) are located on same or different vectors of the system, whereby the guide RNA targets the target sequence and the Cas9 protein cleaves the DNA molecule, whereby expression of the at least one gene product is altered; and, wherein the Cas9 protein and the guide RNA do not naturally occur together.
An engineered, non-naturally occurring CRISPR-Cas system comprising one or more vectors comprising: a) a first regulatory element operable in a eukaryotic cell operably linked to at least one nucleotide sequence encoding a CRISPR-Cas system guide RNA that hybridizes with a target sequence of a DNA molecule in a eukaryotic cell that contains the DNA molecule, wherein the DNA molecule encodes and the eukaryotic cell expresses at least one gene product, and b) a second regulatory element operable in a eukaryotic cell operably linked to a nucleotide sequence encoding a Type-II Cas9 protein, wherein components (a) and (b) are located on same or different vectors of the system, whereby the guide RNA targets and hybridizes with the target sequence and the Cas9 protein cleaves the DNA molecule, whereby expression of the at least one gene product is altered; and, wherein the Cas9 protein and the guide RNA do not naturally occur together.
There exists a pressing need for alternative and robust systems and techniques for sequence targeting with a wide array of applications. This invention addresses this need and provides related advantages. The CRISPR/Cas or the CRISPR-Cas system (both terms are used interchangeably throughout this application) does not require the generation of customized proteins to target specific sequences but rather a single Cas enzyme can be programmed by a short RNA molecule to recognize a specific DNA target, in other words the Cas enzyme can be recruited to a specific DNA target using said short RNA molecule. Adding the CRISPR-Cas system to the repertoire of genome sequencing techniques and analysis methods may significantly simplify the methodology and accelerate the ability to catalog and map genetic factors associated with a diverse range of biological functions and diseases. To utilize the CRISPR-Cas system effectively for genome editing without deleterious effects, it is critical to understand aspects of engineering and optimization of these genome engineering tools, which are aspects of the claimed invention.
"Crispr is absolutely huge. It's incredibly powerful and it has many applications, from agriculture to potential gene therapy in humans," Craig Mello of the University, of Massachusetts Medical School, who shared the 2006 Nobel prize in medicine, told The Independent in November. "It's a tremendous breakthrough with huge implications for molecular biology and molecular genetics. It's a real game-changer."
Hendrik Schön is reinventing the transistor at the place it was born. He and his Bell Labs coworkers have produced single-molecule transistors whose electrical performance is comparable to that of today’s best silicon devices but which are hundreds of times smaller. Making such molecular transistors, which could lead to ultrafast, ultrasmall computers, has been a goal of researchers for years; Schön’s clever design established Bell Labs as a leader in the race. But Schön is not interested in simply reinventing the transistor. He wants to change the very materials that form microelectronics,replacing inorganic semiconductors with organic molecules. Schön has made an organic high-temperature superconductor, renewing hopes that superconductors could have widespread electronic applications. He also helped devise the first electrically driven organic laser, which could mean cheaper optoelectronic devices. The soft-spoken Schön recalls being “very surprised” by how well his molecular transistors worked. But it won’t be a surprise if Schön helps transform microelectronics.
Of course, it would be a surprise if the fraudulent work of Schon transformed anything. And where is Bell Labs now?
Goose confusingly similar to turkey?
Do you remember the "Wild Geese" from 17th century Ireland?
--Advanced biofuels are the fuel of the future, and always will be --?
As has been said, synfuel is the fuel of the future and always will be.
The NYT article was less than clear on what the "dual turning point" was.
But even as Abengoa and other companies prepare to produce significant amounts of cellulosic ethanol, using corn stalks and wheat straw as opposed to corn itself, the appetite for such fuels seems to be diminishing.
The market is saturated with ethanol from corn.
Other things have changed, too, since 2007. A boom in shale drilling has produced a sudden gush of domestic oil. Increasingly efficient cars and a sluggish economy have cut demand for fuel.
A major obstacle for the biofuel industry is the “blend wall,” the current 10 percent limit on ethanol at most gasoline stations. Some car companies warn that above that level, fuel could damage engines in older vehicles. The Energy Department has disputed such concerns, and the E.P.A. has approved use of 15 percent ethanol blends for cars manufactured after 2001. But gasoline stations have been slow at installing the necessary equipment. And only a modest number of vehicles can use E-85, a blend that is 85 percent ethanol.
Are cyanobacteria deemed microorganisms under TSCA?
EPA has extended TSCA oversight to commercial and research activities involving microorganisms by defining "chemical substance" broadly to include microorganisms. n116 However, TSCA pre-manufacture reporting requirements only apply to a "new microorganism," which is further limited to an "intergeneric microorganism." n117 In other words, the requirements apply only to "a microorganism that is formed by the deliberate combination of genetic material originally isolated from organisms of different taxonomic genera." n118 Under TSCA, the term "microorganism" encompasses red and green algae (i.e., microalgae and macroalgae, although notably not cyanobacteria). n119 Under this formulation, microorganisms that are not intergeneric - including naturally occurring and classically mutated or selected microbes, as well as genetically modified microbes whose genetic material originates in a single genus - are not considered to be new and are exempt from TSCA's reporting requirements. n120 To clarify: only those micro-and macroalgal species that have been purposefully cross- [*72] bred or genetically modified to include genes from more than one genera fall under TSCA.
n119. Id.; see Microbial Products of Biotechnology, 62 Fed. Reg. at 17,926.
n120. See Microbial Products of Biotechnology: Summary of Regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act, Envtl. Prot. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/biotech_rule/pubs/pdf/fs-002.pdf (last visited Sept. 26, 2011).
n121. 40 C.F.R. §§725.3, 725.234 (2010).
n122. Premanufacture Notification, 48 Fed. Reg. 21,722, 21,722-24 (May 13, 1983); see Rodgers, supra note 113, at § 6:5(B)(1) (demonstrating that, historically, EPA takes no action on about 85% of premanufacture notices and grants post-notice exemptions from regulation to about 88% of applicants, allowing commercial production to proceed in both cases).
n123. Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C.§§7701-7758 (2010).
n124. 7 C.F.R. § 340.2 (2010).
n125. Regulations Affecting the Use of Genetically Modified Algae for Biofuel Production, D. Glass Assoc., Inc., (June 09, 2010, 7:55 PM), http://dglassassociates.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/regulations-affecting-the-use-of-genetically-modified-algae-for-biofuel- production-2.
Trolls as owners of large numbers of patents?
Not all suits brought to fight patent infringements are trollish in nature, Mr. Singer said, pointing to two recent lawsuits in favor of Carnegie Mellon University and the University of Pittsburgh, respectively.
A jury found that Marvell Technology Group willfully infringed on computer chip technology patented by a CMU professor and student. And Varian Medical Systems last week settled patent litigation with Pitt over technology used during radiation therapy.
Thus, "not practicing" the claims of the patent does not make the patent assertor a "patent troll," in this view.
The definition of a patent troll varies, but for the most part they are companies that file or purchase large numbers of patents — sometimes from bankrupt companies — and then file lawsuits or demand fees against infringing companies.
I.B.M. filed its suits in two federal courts in the Eastern District of Texas, in Tyler and Lufkin. The Eastern District courts there are known for handling patent suits quickly and for often awarding large settlements to plaintiffs, said Gregory P. Silberman, a patent lawyer at the firm of Kaye Scholer.
research by Jane Smith that shows that, before Murrow’s famous interview with Salk with the Salk quote -- “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” --, lawyers for the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis looked into the possibility of patenting the Salk vaccine.
When Jonas Salk asked rhetorically “Would you patent the sun?” during his famous television interview with Edward R. Murrow, he did not mention that the lawyers from the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis had looked into patenting the Salk Vaccine and concluded that it could not be patented because of prior art – that it would not be considered a patentable invention by standards of the day.
Goodliffe, 41, is chief executive of Sustainable Ethanol Technologies, a UNCC spinoff that’s developing a process to produce ethanol — a fuel typically made from corn kernels — from any kind of biomass. The process can use the rest of the corn plant, wood chips, construction and yard waste, and paper. In May, the startup received the first strategic corporate partnership award from the Charlotte Venture Challenge sponsored by UNCC.
The patent-pending process was developed by UNCC professor Matt Parrow and Richard Giles, a former UNCC grad student, now teaching at Cleveland Community College.
I [Goodliffe] spend most of my time talking on the phone and emailing. I am working with the Hutchison law firm in Raleigh, which is giving us about $40,000 in legal fees for equity in the company.
I’m managing Richard and Matt, who are tweaking the process. I’m helping run the pilot project at EcoComplex, a landfill in Catawba County. They’re giving us free biomass, and we’re making ethanol from it.
I’m also managing — or maybe he is managing me — Rick King of Preflight Ventures in Raleigh. He is selling us to ethanol plants so we can start generating revenue. We are close to our first sale and should have an agreement in place by summer. Ultimately, we would like to earn a royalty from each gallon a plant produces using our process.
One relevant US case is US 20110294169 published December 1, 2011 (from 13/116860 ).
1. A method of treating a lignocellulosic material comprising: degrading lignin of the lignocellulosic material with at least one fungus; and hydrolyzing cellulose of the lignocellulosic material with at least one microorganism.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least one fungus comprises a white rot fungus.
Organic Geochemistry (2002), a patent to Akhtar, and other references.
**An RCE, with altered claims, was filed April 7, 2014.
First story is on Pope Francis.
Second story is on a strong US candidate (female) to win this year's Boston Marathon.
Scott Pelley began the story by noting that Pope Francis signs documents simply as "Francis." Robert Mikkens, American journalist covering the Vatican. Francis: your prayer over me is a blessing. Pope number 266. Francis is in room 201 in the Vatican Hotel. The "scandal of normality." The Jesuits: soldiers of God. Abraham Skorka of Argentina met Francis while talking about soccer. Francis is a memmber of the San Lorenzo de Almagro club. "On Heaven and Earth." President Christina Kirschner. Ritual of washing feet on Holy Thursday. Francis is now 77.
CBS Sunday Morning on April 13, 2014.
Charles Osgood introduced the stories for April 13, 2014. Cover story on Alzheimers disease. Medical researchers have made progress, but not so much in Alzheimers. Mo Rocca does cover story. 5 million Americans are afflicted. Family in Colombia. "The Longest Journey." Second, Lee Cowan on stunt performers. Taking the fall. Third, Pharrell Williams. Anthony Mason on Williams' trademark happiness. Fourth, Matzo. Nancy Giles. Streit's Matzo factory. Fifth, Dean Reynolds, train ride. Martha Teichner, Steve Hartman. Headlines, April 13, 2014. FedEx tractor trailer accident, 10 people died. Holy Week at Vatican. First anniversay of Boston explosions. Jordan Spieth at Masters. Weather: severe thunderstorms. Snow in Wyoming and Colorado.
Researchers may be turning a corner. City of Medellin, Colombia having a family with Alzheimers. Early onset Alzheimers is hereditary. This accounts for about 5% of Alzheimers. Alzheimers affects 1 in 8 over 65. By 2050, 16 million Americans.
will have. Dr. Adam Fleischer on amyloid protein. Dr. Francisco Lopera in Colombia. Dr. Eric Reiman of Banner Alzheimer's Institute in Phoenix.
Pulse: 40% think a cure for Alzheimers is "somewhat likely" in their lifetime.
Almanac. April 13, 1570. Guy Fawkes. Nov. 5, 1605. V for Vendetta.
Martha Teichner on architect Moshe Safdie. Marina Bay Resort in Singapore. Habitat 67 in Montreal ( located at 2600 Avenue Pierre-Dupuy on the Marc-Drouin Quay next to the Saint Lawrence River ). An idea whose time has yet to come. Mention of Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas.
Nancy Giles on matzos. Streits Matzo Factory, in business since 1925. Allan Adler.
Week ahead. 75th anniversary of Grapes of Wrath. Thursday: Victoria Beckham, 40th birthday.
Samsung’s lawyers called Mr. Lockheimer as a witness so he could demonstrate how Android was already well into development before the iPhone was introduced, making it unlikely that Apple was copied by Google and, by extension, Samsung.
One notes that U.S. patent law does not have an independent creation defense. Patent infringement is strict liability: does your product fall within the scope of the claims or not? It does not matter if you (or someone else) were working on the invention independently, and thus did not copy. Not relevant to infringement.
If these other efforts were made public, that might go to arguments that (here) the Apple patents were invalid. But not relevant to infringement.
These efforts by Samsung do go to a "good story" approach: In Apple’s latest patent fight with Samsung Electronics, lawyers on both sides are relying on the power of a good story to sway a jury.
“Don’t you mean Omnia?” Mr. Vellturo responded, and he then questioned whether Samsung needed to hire a new marketing team.
of success. See PharmaStem Therapeutics, Inc. v.
Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
treat osteoporosis and reduce fracture risk.
number of identified, predictable solutions.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007).
out to be somewhat greater than would have been expected.
Patent buyer Intellectual Ventures has persuaded Microsoft and Sony to invest in its latest acquisition fund while Apple and Intel, which invested with IV previously, declined to participate, according to people briefed on the fundraising.
Next, Varian contends that its non-infringement and invalidity defenses were reasonable and that the trial court erred in finding that Varian acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent. Varian thus requests that we reverse the trial court’s willfulness holding. We agree with Varian that the court erred in its assessment of the objective prong of its willfulness determination because Varian’s validity defense under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was not objectively baseless.
Varian further contends that the damages award based on claim 22 should be vacated because the district court improperly construed that claim to include beam generators when sold in combination with the RPM System. According to Varian, when claim 22 is properly construed, Pitt is not entitled to damages based on the sales of the linear accelerators, but only the separate RPM System. We again agree with Varian.
Establishing that a defendant has willfully infringed a valid patent is a two-step inquiry. First, “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). After the “threshold objective standard is satisfied, the patentee must also demonstrate that this objectively-defined risk . . . was either known or so obvi- ous that it should have been known to the accused in-fringer.” Id. The threshold objective prong “is a question of law based on underlying questions of law and fact and is subject to de novo review.” Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
While not of substantial weight, it is at least worth noting that the PTO initially rejected the claims of the ’554 patent in light of Peltola during reexamination. While the PTO ultimately found that Peltola did not invalidate the asserted claims of the ’554 patent, the PTO’s actions during reexamination lend some credibility to Varian’s argument that its invalidity defense based on Peltola was not objectively unreasonable when the PTO went so far as to issue an initial rejection of the claims.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[M]ere statements of disa- greement with the district court . . . do not amount to a developed argument.”).
I agree with the majority’s decision to reverse the will- fulness finding. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the construction of claim 20. In my view, the majority’s construction is plainly incor- rect, and the resulting infringement findings as to claim 20 as well as claims 22 and 38, which depend from and recite the same apparatus as claim 20, should be set aside.
Historical revisionism in the current patent reform debate: first Elias Howe and now the Wright Brothers, re-interpreted?
Of the recent discussion of patent reform, note the comment on April 9 to an earlier IPBiz post.
Separately, note the questionable content in a Wall Street Journal online post titled The Wright Brothers and a Patent-Law Dogfight by one LAWRENCE GOLDSTONE.
On Dec. 17, 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright successfully flew an airplane over the windswept dunes of Kitty Hawk, N.C., but few people realize that for the next four years the Wright brothers refused to publicly demonstrate their miraculous machine. Before sharing their invention with the world, they wanted to be certain that they had secured a patent that would cover the very notion of controlled flight itself. Their intention—about which they were utterly candid—was to collect royalties on every airplane produced.
After December 1903, the Wright Brothers returned to Ohio, where they continued to fly. Their patent application had been filed BEFORE December 1903, and had nothing to do with powered flight, but rather with three dimensional control of flight, powered or unpowered. Their intention was to enforce their patent against people who would make money from utilizing their invention, and they made clear they would not enforce the patent against people who made their own planes for pleasure. So the text "on every airplane produced" is wrong.
In a final twist, the year after Wilbur died, the Wrights won their suit against Curtiss. But they never collected a penny in damages. In 1915, Orville sold his interest in the Wright Co. and left the aviation business. Glenn Curtiss continued to innovate, build airplanes and thrive.
As to the matter of damages, in the face of World War I, Franklin Roosevelt (then in the Navy Department, which was a separate Cabinet branch at the time) arranged a "patent pool" so the "big guys" in the aviation business shared the spoils; the $10,000 buy-in blocked the "little guys." The on-going patent litigations were placed in abeyance, and were not re-initiated after World War I. Orville did not leave the aviation business. He did have interest in preserving the Wright legacy, which involved some fractious dealing with the Smithsonian, which had helped Curtiss in the patent dispute. Glenn Curtiss was selling real estate in Florida by 1920, and was not innovating in aviation.
In January 1912, Wilbur himself wrote to a friend in Europe that he regretted leaving the workshop for the courtroom, and he wondered how far he might have pushed the boundaries of aviation had he not lost himself in the morass of the legal system.
Also of note in the Tobin book is the discussion of Amos Ives Root. On page 220, Tobin notes that an account written by Root for his readers of Gleanings in Bee Culture was rejected for publication in Scientific American.
The courts held that ailerons were the equivalent of wing-warping, so that the Wright patent was not blocked by the patents of Curtiss. "But for" the pool, Curtiss would have lost his shirt. The pool agreement was, not surprisingly, written by Curtiss' lawyer, Crisp. The Navy Department was interested in developments by Curtiss, while the War Department had been ignoring what the Wrights had been saying for years.
US-built JN-4's were used as trainers to some extent, but were never used as fighters. All American fliers in WWI used foreign-made fighters. The surplus of (unused) JN-4's depressed prices for aircraft in the 1920's.
At the time of the pool, Wilbur was dead and Orville had sold his financial interests. After 1917, Martin was out of Wright-Martin, so that the actions of Wright-Martin were made by investors not connected to the Wrights or to Martin.
Mr. Goldstone has responded to the post, and that response is given below.
As one point, the filing date of the application that led to US 821,393 is listed on the issued patent as March 23, 1903, which is before the flight of December 17, 1903. The Wrights did NOT file a new application after December 17, 1903. Thus, they did not "re-file" in 1904. They prosecuted the application filed on March 23, 1903. They utilized the disclosure of March 23, 1903. The figures of that disclosure have no engines. Mr. Goldstone is invited to comment upon "when" attorney Toulmin entered the picture.
As to the term "monopoly," even the US Supreme Court sometimes lapses into the use of this term to describe patent rights. However, as most readers of this blog know, a patent right is a a right to exclude, not a right to practice.
This issue actually arose in the Wright/Curtiss wars, because it was alleged that some Curtiss patents might block the Wrights' rights to some embodiments. The diode/triode impasse was yet to come.
Mr. Goldstone has an open invitation to correct any other "errors" he perceives to exist in the above text. If he fails to do so, an adverse inference against Mr. Goldstone's credibility will be made.
Update on April 12, 2014.
IPBiz received no further word from Mr. Goldstone.

References: § 314
 v. 
 § 141
 v. 
 v. 
 § 724
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 § 340
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 § 103
 v. 
 v.