Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2015/09/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:22:07+00:00

Document:
Gorgadze said that Raskhodnikov wrote the script back in 2008 and shopped it around to a number of studios. The lawyer also said that Raskhodnikov is positive that his script made its way to Fox’s main headquarters, and the plot line and "some details" from the script were used for The Martian. The suit is currently slated to be considered in October, and Gorgadze brought up Russia’s Culture Minister, Vladimir Medinsky, saying he has a legal right to suspend the October 8 release of the film until this situation is resolved.
Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451 et seq.
second remand order, we affirm.
and enforcement of its patents were at issue.
complaint sounded solely in the VCPA, a state law.
The parties dispute our jurisdiction over this appeal.
MPHJ’s other counterclaims or Vermont’s claim.
then existing consumer protection law?
that we find no grounds for removal to federal court.
than by a predecessor in interest to that defendant.
amendments to jurisdictional statutes adopted in the AIA.
Statement of Opposition in re European Patent No. 2285948, filed Oct. 8, 2014, on behalf of Algenol Biofuels Switzerland GmbH before the European Patent Office, twenty-nine pages. cited by applicant .
The Berlin-based law professor Gerhard Dannemann, who investigated her thesis and published his findings on the internet platform Vroniplag Wiki, said several passages of her thesis were clearly from sources that were not attributed.
"In think the flaws are more severe than in the case of Mrs Schavan," Dannemann told Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper in an interview to be published on Monday. "We're not talking about a borderline case here."
Schavan resigned as education minister in 2013 after being stripped of her doctorate for plagiarism, embarrassing Merkel and the conservatives in the run-up to the elections that year.
Ms von der Leyen is alleged to have copied text in her obstetrics doctorate verbatim from other sources without proper attribution on 27 of the 62 pages of her 1990 dissertation, according to Berlin-based law professor Gerhard Dannemann, who examined the thesis and published his findings on VroniPlag.
The defence minister, a member of Mrs Merkel's centre-right CDU party and a mother of seven, qualified as a doctor in 1987 and was awarded a doctorate in medicine in 1991, working as a gynaecologist and in public health before entering politics, according to her website.
Overall, the above statistics provide a depressing prognosis for those who are hoping that the PTAB will overturn an examiner’s § 101 rejection (even when the examiner did not apply Alice) based on the PTAB’s current application of Alice. Moreover, while we identified no PTAB decisions that have been issued based on the examiner applying Alice during prosecution, the PTAB’s current trends strongly suggest that successfully appealing such a rejection in the future will be challenging. As a result, filing an appeal to the PTAB is no sure escape from Alice’s not-so-wonderful wonderland.
The word "wonderland" appears only in the title and in the conclusion. One suspects the use of "wonderland" is not favorable to PTAB.
In a study published on Friday, scientists led by Feng Zhang of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology report that they discovered enzymes that cut more precisely than those now in use in CRISPR, a technique with an uncanny ability to make a beeline for a targeted stretch of DNA, snip it out, and replace it.
The microbial adaptive immune system CRISPR mediates defense against foreign genetic elements through two classes of RNA-guided nuclease effectors. Class 1 effectors utilize multi-protein complexes, whereas class 2 effectors rely on single-component effector proteins such as the well-characterized Cas9. Here, we report characterization of Cpf1, a putative class 2 CRISPR effector. We demonstrate that Cpf1 mediates robust DNA interference with features distinct from Cas9. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease lacking tracrRNA, and it utilizes a T-rich protospacer-adjacent motif. Moreover, Cpf1 cleaves DNA via a staggered DNA double-stranded break.
EFF discusses dispute over meaning of the word "integer"
In patent litigation, patent owners and alleged infringers often disagree about the meaning of words in patent claims and ask the court to resolve the differences (a process known as “claim construction”). In Core Wireless’ case against LG, the majority of the disputes seem like usual ones in terms of patent litigation.
Some persons seem to suppose that a claim in a patent is like a nose of wax which may be turned and twisted in any direction, by merely referring to the specification, so as to make it include something more than, or something different from, what its words express.
EFF correctly notes the source of the nose of wax line as the Supreme Court, which is more specifically White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47 (1886).
Claim drafting is itself an art, an art on which the entire patent system today depends. The language through which claims are expressed is not a nose of wax to be pushed and shoved into a form that pleases and that produces a particular result a court may desire. The public generally, and in particular, the patentees’ competitors, are entitled to clear and specific notice of what the inventor claims as his invention. That is not an easy assignment for those who draft claims, but the law requires it, and our duty demands that we enforce the requirement. There is no room in patent claim interpretation for the equivalent of the cy pres doctrine; that would leave the claiming process too indefinite to serve the purposes which lie at the heart of the patent system.
So far the high court has not put a single patent case—or trademark or copyright, for that matter—on its 2015-16 docket. Some patent law experts believe the court is taking a break from patent law after a period of exceptional activity, including a record six decisions in 2013-14.
"I don't think we'll see six" this term, said Emory University School of Law professor Timothy Holbrook. "I wouldn't be surprised if we saw none."
"It may be that other things are crowding out patent law for awhile," said Fenwick & West patent litigation chief Michael Sacksteder.
court granting M-I LLC’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
patent and Technology Evaluation Report.
FPUSA had not raised a substantial question of invalidity.
which was filed in 2006.
would likely suffer an irreparable loss of market share.
district court’s judgment of nonobviousness.
to include an on-sale bar claim, we affirm that ruling.
all the patents-in-suit for Vyvanse®.
defendants notified Shire of the Paragraph IV certifications.
claims not at issue in this appeal, under 35 U.S.C.
motivation to make mesylate salts of LDX. Op. at *15–17.
material fact whether Australian Patent Application No.
mesylate salt of LDX would serve its intended purpose.
(“Miller”), to bolster their obviousness argument.
522 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
“and the like,” and states they can belong to the D- or Lseries.
focus exclusively on amino acids with the L stereochemistry.
the L stereochemistry of its amino acids.
properly in the suit and can be liable for induced infringement.
of Forest Labs., Johnson Matthey can be enjoined.
the API it sold the ANDA defendants up to this point.
of the compound claims at issue.
The facts of this case lend themselves to the conclusion that "detecting human body temperature" states the intended purpose of the claims and is not itself a substantive claim limitation. Although Kaz seizes on the fact that Exergen agreed to a construction of the phrase during the Markman proceeding, construing a term is not determinative of a claim limitation. The patents-in-suit do not teach direct measurement of temperature at a person's core. Rather, they disclose methods of measuring temperature at the forehead, and then computing or otherwise providing "a body temperature approximation." See, e.g., '938 patent claim 54. The steps of the claims constitute integral methods that do not depend on the preamble. Each asserted [*6] claim that recites language from the preamble also incorporates an explicit step for computing or determining an internal body temperature or a body temperature approximation. Thus, the preamble language "is reasonably susceptible to being construed to be merely duplicative of the limitations in the body of the claim."4 Am. Med., 618 F.3d at 1359. Finally, the preamble language was not "clearly added to overcome a [prior art] rejection." Id. The preamble phrase appeared in the original claims of the patent applications and Exergen did not rely on the preamble language to distinguish prior art during patent prosecution.
It is unnecessary for the court to determine now the admissibility of Kaz's evidence to decide the motion for summary judgment. At this juncture, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in Exergen's favor as the nonmoving party.8 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In doing so, the court finds that Dr. Collins' evidence, if credited by the jury, could warrant a conclusion that the devices meet the "peak temperature" limitation, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.9 See, e.g., In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1259-1261 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (conflicting expert opinions sufficient to defeat summary judgment). That said, the court will deny Exergen's motion to strike. [*15] The court will give the parties (if either so chooses) the opportunity to take the depositions of Cho and Frick for the limited purpose of authenticating the Microlife documents on which Gorsich relies. The court will decide the admissibility question by way of an appropriate motion in limine prior to trial.
In its motion, Kaz contended that the ’813 patent, which relates to measuring body temperature at the ear, teaches the key elements of the asserted claims and that Exergen was estopped from arguing otherwise based upon positions it took in an earlier litigation involving the ’813 patent. In that earlier case, Exergen alleged that certain temporal artery thermometers similar to Kaz’s infringed claim 7 of the ’813 patent, which is directed to a thermometer for measuring temperature at any “biological surface tissue.” Exergen also claimed that claim 7 of the ’813 patent was enabled by the ’813 specification. As a result, Kaz asserted that Exergen cannot reverse course now and claim that the ’813 patent does not disclose essential elements of the patents asserted against Kaz.
In response, Exergen stated that its position in the earlier case—“that claim 7 of the ’813 patent is both enabled and covers temporal artery thermometers”—and its position here—“that temporal artery thermometers were invented years after the ’813 patent”—are not directly inconsistent and thus, estoppel is not triggered.
The Court sided with Exergen, explaining that after-arising technology—like temporal artery thermometers—can be captured within the scope of the broadly-drafted ’813 patent claims without necessitating the conclusion that “the ’813 patent disclosed the later invention.” Similarly, Judge Stearns found that the earlier jury’s finding of enablement of claim 7 of the ’813 patent “does not conclusively establish that the ’813 patent enabled the making of temporal artery thermometers.
A genus does not necessarily anticipate (or render obvious) a species.
The United States stands out among wealthy countries in that we give drug companies patent monopolies on drugs that are essential for people’s health or lives and then allows them to charge whatever they want. Every other wealthy country has some system of price controls or negotiated prices where the government limits the extent to which drug companies can exploit the monopoly it has given them. The result is that we pay roughly twice as much for our drugs as the average for other wealthy countries. This additional cost is not associated with better care; we are just paying more for the same drugs.
Drug companies routinely mislead doctors and the public about the safety and effectiveness of their drugs to increase sales. The cost in terms of bad health outcomes and avoidable deaths runs into the tens of billions of dollars every year.
We don’t need patent monopolies to support research. We already spend more than $30 billion a year financing research through the National Institutes of Health. Everyone, including the drug companies, agrees that this money is very productive. We could double or triple this spending and replace the patent supported research done by the drug companies. With the research costs paid upfront, most drugs would be available for the same price as a bottle of generic aspirin.
One notes that the bulk of money to bring a drug to market is in running the trials, not in getting a patent on the drug.
Baker received his B.A. from Swarthmore College and his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Michigan.
The matter of running trials has taken on new meaning following PTAB's denial of the IPR petition on Tecfidera.
The Ministry of Education and Science has stripped a former speaker of the Moscow City Duma of his doctoral degree, after he conceded that his thesis contained "unconscientious borrowing."
The ministry said it acted on the request of the former speaker Vladimir Platonov, to revoke his degree and on a ruling by the state certification board, according to the ministry's order published this week by Dissernet.org — an online group aimed at exposing intellectual fraud by public figures.
Dissernet exposed parts of Platonov's thesis for a doctoral law degree as having been lifted from other sources, according to the group's report last fall.
Platonov responded months later, saying he had made a "difficult decision" and asked the State Commission for Academic Degrees and Titles to revoke his degree.
went on to other things. Poshard kept his Ph.D. and job.
If you guessed, "the kind who would buy a patent for a 62-year-old drug and hike its price 4,000 percent," you're absolutely right – meet Martin Shkreli.
Shkreli, 32, landed in the hot seat this week when news broke that his company, Turing Pharmaceuticals, purchased the rights to the drug Daraprim, used to treat the parasitic infection toxoplasmosis (HIV and AIDS patients are especially susceptible). The company that had previously held the rights to the drug was selling it at $18 a pill; Turing changed the price to $750.
What is going on with Daraprim is not a patent issue. It is the FDA, not the US Patent Office, which grants exclusivity as to specialty drugs.
designed to promote a balance between new drug innovation and generic drug competition.
year, and 180-day) is described in 21 C.F.R. 314.108.
In 2010, specialty drug approvals by the FDA exceeded traditional drug approvals for the first time, a trend that has continued each year since. And in 2013, 60 percent of the drugs approved by the FDA are expected to be specialty drugs. Under current law, brand name biologic drugs are given a 12 year exclusivity period upon approval from the FDA, while traditional drugs are given exclusivity protection for just 5 years. Granting exclusivity to specialty drugs removes the economic benefits of price competition, resulting in higher prices relative to what they would be in a perfectly competitive market. The Government Accountability Office released a report examining trends in Medicare Part B spending and found that in 2010, not only did 10 drugs account for 44 percent of all Part B spending, but none of these drugs had a generic version also approved by the FDA.
See also the IPBiz post on colchicine, wherein the FDA granted exclusivity on a drug known to treat gout for hundreds of years.
Costs for patients. A relatively small share of the population uses specialty drugs—in the commercial population, approximately three to four of every 100 plan enrollees use at least one.21,22 Therefore, per-person specialty drug costs are high, ranging from several thousand dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for some of the highest-cost products.
In 2012, MS drugs accounted for 10% of specialty drug outlay.
Specialty pharmacy, which once occupied only a small niche in the marketplace, has now become the largest growth area in the pharmacy industry. IMS Health data shows a clear trend of increasing utilization for top Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Oral Oncology products in the specialty channel with decreasing utilization in retail channel over the past 5 years (Figure 2). Currently, three pharmacies -- Express Scripts, CVS Caremark and Walgreens -- make up more than 50% of the specialty drug market while the rest of the market is comprised of hundreds of smaller specialty pharmacies, including Diplomat pharmacy and Omnicare’s advanced care scripts4. However, due to the commoditization of retail pharmacy dispensing, there has been an ever-growing increase in the number of pharmacy providers dispensing specialty drugs, driving up the level of competition. In addition to traditional specialty pharmacies which are independent or owned by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), there is a range of new entities entering the specialty pharmacy marketplace. The new players include specialty pharmacies operated by wholesalers, large hospital organizations, physician practices and retail pharmacies. As a result, there has been an emergence of several specialty pharmacy trade associations representing viewpoints from a diverse set of players and further increasing the complexity of this market.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each argument presented by the Appellants on pages 5 through 11 of the Answer. We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
A request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the briefs are not permitted in the request for rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1). Also, a request for rehearing is not an opportunity to merely express disagreement with a decision without setting forth points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked. The proper course for an Applicant dissatisfied with a Board decision is to seek judicial review, not to file a request for rehearing to reargue issues that have already been decided. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 141, 145. Appellant seeks a rehearing arguing the Board overlooked discouragement for the asserted combinations. Req. Reh’g. 2.
In Engineered Plastics v. ADA, the patent owner got a re-hearing but still lost.
The Patent Owner requests reconsideration (hereinafter "Rehearing Request" or "Reh'g Req.") under 37 C.F.R. § 41.79 of our Decision mailed March 26, 2015 (hereinafter "Original Decision") affirming the Examiner's final rejections of the appealed claims 1, 2 and 19–22.
We grant the Rehearing Request to the extent that we consider the Patent Owner's arguments infra, and further explain the Original Decision. However, we deny the request to modify the Original Decision.
More importantly, regardless of what the Trafixigns ’732 statement may mean, the Patent Owner overlooks the actual basis for affirming the rejection, which is that Wehmeyer explicitly discloses installation of plates in freshly poured (or hardened) concrete, and also specifically discloses wetset installation with the lugs attached to the plates (Original Decision 6–7; Wehmeyer, col. 2, ll. 36–44, col. 8, ll. 17–21).
the memory including executable instructions that upon execution cause the system to: receive an electronic request for a fund transfer from the customer; initiate a debit of a first amount of a first currency from the customer account; determine whether using cryptocurrency is optimal; in response to determining using cryptocurrency is optimal: transfer the first amount of the first currency into an account associated with a first cryptocurrency exchange; initiate the purchase of a first quantity of a cryptocurrency from the first cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the first quantity of cryptocurrency is equivalent to the first amount of the first currency; transfer the first quantity of the cryptocurrency to a second cryptocurrency exchange; initiate, essentially simultaneously as the initiation of the purchase, the sale of the first quantity of the cryptocurrency at the second cryptocurrency exchange, wherein the sale of the first quantity of cryptocurrency results in a second amount of a second currency; and communicate a message to a local automated clearing house, the message requesting a transfer of at least a portion of the second amount of the second currency to a recipient.
FIG. 1 illustrates an example cryptocurrency wire transfer environment 100 according to certain embodiments. In general, wire transfers are used by enterprises, such as financial institutions, to transfer funds from one customer account to another customer account. Some wire transfers may move funds from a customer account in one country to a customer account in another country. In response, the enterprise may decide to use a cryptocurrency to transfer the funds. A cryptocurrency is typically a peer-to-peer, decentralized, digital currency whose implementation relies on the principles of cryptography to validate transactions and generate the currency itself. Some examples of cryptocurrencies are: Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ripple, Peercoin, and Dogecoin. In some instances, a cryptocurrency, such as MintChip, may be backed by a government (e.g., Canada). To transfer funds using cryptocurrency, an enterprise may receive payment from a customer and purchase a quantity of a chosen cryptocurrency, at a local cryptocurrency exchange, in an amount equivalent to the received payment. Essentially simultaneously or shortly thereafter, the enterprise may sell the quantity of the chosen cryptocurrency at a foreign cryptocurrency exchange, resulting in a foreign currency that is used by the country in which the recipient account is located. The enterprise may also transfer the quantity of the chosen cryptocurrency from the local cryptocurrency exchange to the foreign cryptocurrency exchange.
Amici Curiae LG Electronics, Inc., Dell Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, L Brands Inc., Newegg Inc., Ninestar Image Tech Limited, QVC, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., SAS Institute Inc., and Xilinx, Inc. move to participate in the oral argument scheduled for October 2, 2015. Lexmark International, Inc. opposes.
Did PTAB and the NLR analyze the facts of the Tecfidera petition properly?
One notes that pre-clinical studies, which precede Phase II studies, are done to establish preliminary efficacy. A problem with the PTAB decision: are Phase II studies necessary to establish utility in the patent law context?
In the context of this case, the fumaric acid esters (which apparently were di-methyl and mono-methyl in the Kappos work) did show positive results in the gadolinium MRI.
One notes from a paper published in 1987: Gadolinium DTPA is a paramagnetic contrast agent that does not cross an intact blood–brain barrier. We studied 16 patients with multiple sclerosis, using magnetic resonance imaging, gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and computed tomographic scans. Gadolinium enhancement of multiple sclerosis plaques correlated with the clinical activity of the disease and corresponded anatomically with the symptoms and signs.
Next up: trade secret trolls?
Of course, frivolous lawsuits are nothing new, but recent shifts have made trade secrets a particularly attractive claim for anyone looking to go after a deep-pocketed tech company. As courts weaken patent protection to counteract trolls, companies have been keeping more of their intellectual property as unregistered trade secrets. That means more legitimate claims as companies choose to keep their tools as trade secrets rather than patents, but it also gives potential trolls more cover if they want to puff up a shaky claim into a quick settlement.
Miller also cautioned employees to be “careful about believing what you read,” in the Star — even though the UA has never challenged the accuracy of the newspaper’s reporting on the Dickinson case.
The UA declined to release documents related to the tenure award. In response to a recent public records request, the school provided the Star with a version of Dickinson’s personnel file stripped of any information related to the plagiarism case or the tenure decision.
Exmark is a division of Toro.
In a federal court decision in Nebraska, announced Monday, jurors said that Exmark was entitled to $24.3 million in damages and also found that the infringement was willful, which would allow the judge to enhance the jury's damages award.
Exmark's lawsuit, filed in 2010, was aimed at certain Snapper and Ferris brand mowers manufactured by Briggs & Stratton.
The patent was issued in 1999, according to court records.
Briggs and another defendant in the case, Schiller Grounds Care Inc. of Pennsylvania, argued that the patent was invalid for several reasons.
But in an earlier ruling, a federal judge said it had been reviewed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that its claims were patentable.
The District Court jury decided that Briggs willfully infringed on Exmark's patent.
The jury, however, found that redesigned versions of the mowers, currently in the marketplace, did not infringe on the patent.
Briggs & Stratton spokeswoman Laura Timm said the company strongly disagreed with the verdict.
The company "intends to vigorously pursue its rights through post-trial motions and, if necessary, on appeal," Timm said in a statement.
Exmark spokesman Branden Happel said the company was pleased with the verdict.
"We work hard to develop innovative products and solutions to help our customers and vigorously protect and defend our patents and other intellectual property rights," Happel said in a statement.
Eventually renamed for its star, "The Phil Silvers Show" ran for just four years, but won EIGHT Emmys, including a Best Actor Award for Silvers in 1956.
recall the episode of the Silvers show: "The Case of Private Harry Speakup", wherein a recruit's pet chimpanzee is sworn into the Army.
Of some IP interest, the last line of the last episode was -- "Th-th-that's all, folks!" --, which of course is the signature line of Porky Pig. Separately, CBS, which cancelled the show, immediately sold the rights to NBC, which benefitted greatly from the re-runs.
Holes in the safest city conclusion?
We must not erode this incentive to develop novel ideas or restrict the opportunity for inventors to license their know-how. Unfortunately, there is legitimate concern that patent legislation currently pending before the U.S. Congress -- H.R. 9 (the Innovation Act) and S. 1137 (the PATENT Act) -- would do just that.
A stated aim of the pending legislation is to stop abusive patent litigation. Without question those who seek to abuse the patent system should be rooted out for the same reasons that our courts guard against abusive litigation involving physical property. But as currently drafted, the bills would fundamentally weaken basic patent rights by protecting infringers at the expense of patent holders. This would be devastating to small and large entities that invent or seek licenses to use inventions of others.
A particularly problematic component of the House and Senate bills is the so-called “customer stay” provision, which like other parts of the legislation is much broader than necessary to achieve its stated goals. The provision seeks to ensure that a business that buys and uses a patent-infringing off-the-shelf product may avoid litigation that is more appropriately brought against the manufacturer of the product. The provision would “stay” or stop litigation against such “customers” and force patent holders to first go after “upstream” manufacturers. The problem is that the definition of “customer” is so broad that the right to stay litigation would also apply to large manufacturers, assemblers, and retailers that may reap millions or even billions in profits from using and selling the infringing product or component.
the N&M reference does not change our view.
analysis—per § 252, that fact affects intervening rights.
See 35 U.S.C. § 307(b).
“substantially identical” to original claim 1. 35 U.S.C.
in 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(1) that may bar legal remedies.
eBay framework. In contrast, Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S.
foreclose an ongoing royalty in extraordinary circumstances.
Aukerman that laches was codified in 35 U.S.C. § 282.
estoppel and unclean hands.” Id. (quoting P.J.
Federico, Commentary on the New Patent Act, 35 U.S.C.A.
1, 55 (West 1954) (hereinafter Federico Commentary)).
(citing Cornetta v. United States, 851 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir.
Cir.), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 854 (1953) (breach of contract)).
parties.” Id. (emphasis in original).
law and equity courts allowed laches to bar legal relief.
as a defense in civil actions. Id.
Injunction win for Apple in smart phone wars.
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Tivo Research and Analytics, Inc. dba TRA, Inc.
judgment that it did not infringe U.S. Patent No.
infringement of the ’940 Patent, and also U.S. Patent Nos.
however, and the court entered final judgment.
Judgment Op., 984 F. Supp. 2d at 222.
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. Id. at 239.
law applies to TRA’s trade secret claims against Kantar.
of the regional circuit. Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v.
Vermeer Mfg. Co., 723 F.3d 1376, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Circuit, such rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
See Phoenix Assocs. III v. Stone, 60 F.3d 95, 100 (2d Cir.
522, 525 (2d Cir. 1990).
prejudice to the adverse party.” N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot.
v. Atl. Richfield Co., No. 1:00-cv-1898, 2014 U.S. Dist.
Unigene Labs. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 06-cv-5571, 2010 U.S.
[a] claim being deemed waived.”)).
was an inappropriate sanction in these circumstances.
shirked its discovery obligations. Cf. Robertson v.
especially one imposed without warning.
district court considered the efficacy of lesser sanctions.
that the district court considered any lesser sanctions”).
TRA was not entitled to a jury trial as to those claims.
Odd argument for Google to make in Suprema vs. ITC?
Inc., Washington, DC is mentioned as to the amicus brief.
implicated” by customers’ potential infringement of patents.
intended to induce infringement of the patent.” 35 U.S.C.
issued in 2007, this provision does not control here.
Both the paper and the report reference the same statements presented before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991, and both include the same spelling error for one source’s name.
Wall Street Journal opinion piece criticizes patent "reform"
are lobbying hard for the pending legislation mentioned in Mr. Malanga’s piece to make it extremely risky for individuals and small businesses to sue infringers. If they are successful, patents will no longer be financially feasible for most individuals and small businesses, making their innovations and development results much less valuable, leading to a huge disincentive to their research and development. This will greatly reduce technical progress.
that smaller entity will have to pay lawyers to show "why" it should not pay the alleged infringer's legal fees.
"Invention companies that rely on patent-licensing fees are outnumbered and outgunned in lobbying by the companies selling products that are in high demand because of the valuable technologies inside them. "
Antitrust agencies should resist pressures from vested interests to regulate the market in favor of one business model over another. Invention companies that rely on patent-licensing fees are outnumbered and outgunned in lobbying by the companies selling products that are in high demand because of the valuable technologies inside them. If this free-market economic balance shifts to favor short-term profits of technology implementers over long-term innovation, consumers will be the biggest losers.
Federal patent office rules against two Pitt doctors on vaccine application.
There was a patent application filed by Professors Jay Kolls and Mingquan Zheng. The aggrieved complainants were Pitt researchers Karen Norris, an immunology professor at UPitt, and Heather Kling, a postdoctoral student in her lab.
In 2011, Dr. Norris complained to Pitt officials that Dr. Kolls and Dr. Zheng, who had moved to Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC from Louisiana State, had falsely claimed they did the monkey research that was the basis for seeking a patent on a pneumocystis vaccine. She contended that the Kolls-Zheng lab had received samples of the pneumocystis protein cited in the patent documents from her lab; that the Kolls-Zheng lab never worked with monkeys, only mice; and that Dr. Kolls had learned about details of her lab’s research when he served as a member of Dr. Kling’s dissertation committee.
Charles Osgood introduced the stories for September 13, 2015, beginning with the cover story by Lee Cowan on athletes not managing their finances well. A later pulse poll revealed 67% of the population think athletes are paid too much.
The almanac was on the birth of Milton Hershey. Of interest, Hershey's decision to do chocolate was a result of a visit to Chicago's Worlds Fair in 1893. This World's Fair was pivotal as to Edison and ac/dc as well as for the use of batteries in cars and other things. Not mentioned in the piece was the furor from 2002. From Wikipedia: On July 25, 2002 it became public knowledge that the Hershey Trust Company was seeking to sell its controlling interest in the Hershey Foods Corporation. The value of Hershey stock skyrocketed 25% with over 19 million shares trading that day. But over the following 55 days, widespread press coverage, as well as pressure from Pennsylvania Attorney General Mike Fisher, the community of Hershey, and Dauphin County Orphans' Court Senior Judge Warren G. Morgan, led to the sale being abandoned.
In terms of intellectual property, wikipedia notes: Hershey's filed a lawsuit against Let's Buy British Imports, and Posh Nosh Imports because of the aforementioned companies importation of Nestlé's Yorkie, and Toffee Crisp, for Hershey's claim of alleged resemblance to York Peppermint Patties and Reese's Peanut Butter Cups, respectively; despite the fact that Hershey's and Nestlé's respective products are different types of candy. Hershey also claimed that import of original British Rolo by Nestlé violated its licensed rights to the Rolo brand in the US, and sought the end of importation of Rolo into the US.
Hershey's also sought the halting of the importation of British, South African, Canadian, Australian, New Zealander, and all other Cadbury brand chocolate other than Hershey's licensed chocolate product produced in the US and marketed under the Cadbury brand name. Hershey's claimed that the importers, LBB Importers and Posh Nosh, were infringing on their rights to the Cadbury brand name in the US due to their licensing agreement with Cadbury, a division of Mondelez.
In addition, Hershey's claimed that the two importers needed to stop importing Mars's Maltesers malted milk balls because Hershey's makes their own malted milk balls under the Maltesers name. Hershey's itself has been sued by Mars for violating Mars' trademark and rights to Maltesers, Mars has said that Hershey's has copied Maltesers brand, packaging, and products; that lawsuit has not settled as of 16 February 2015.
Breyer has just written a new book, "The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities" (Knopf), which argues that while our nation's justice system remains an example to other democracies, it must also evolve to meet the demands of a rapidly-changing world.
That puts him at odds with conservative Justice Antonin Scalia -- a familiar place for Breyer. He's not only known as a liberal-leaning justice, but also the one most willing to publicly debate Scalia and other Justices who adhere to "Originalism" -- a philosophy focused on the original understanding of the Constitution. Breyer thinks the meaning of the Constitution can change with the times.
The contrast was clear earlier this summer, when Breyer said the Justices should rethink the constitutionality of the death penalty -- a punishment accepted by the founding fathers.
Justice Scalia called it "gobbledy-gook."

References: § 101
 v. 
 § 41
 v. 
 § 41
 § 252
 § 307
 § 282
 v. 
 § 282
 v. 
 § 1295
 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.