Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2016/10/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:30:11+00:00

Document:
In 1914, Lawrence Dale Bell had been shop foreman for the Glenn L. Martin Company. In 1916, the Martin Company merged with the Wright Company to form Wright-Martin. Wright-Martin competed with the Curtiss Company for government contracts. One of the last projects of the Curtiss Company was the Curtiss-Bleecker Helicopter, work for which was abandoned in 1933. Lawrence Dale Bell founded Bell Aircraft in 1935.
In 1941, Arthur Middleton Young was issued the key rotor stabilizer bar patent, assigned it to Bell and moved to Buffalo to work with them.
In an aircraft, a bladed rotor, a rotor support, means for mounting said rotor for rotation on said support and for universal inclination of the plane of the rotor relative to the rotor support, and means for adjusting the aerodynamic incidence of the blades individually including means for controlling the aerodynamic incidence of a given blade by the change in inclination of the blade ahead of it relative ,to the rotor support.
In 1948, Young married Ruth Forbes Paine, and thereby became step-father to Michael Paine (then 20 years old).
Bell Aircraft Corporation created a Helicopter Division which moved to Fort Worth, Texas in 1951 and became Bell Helicopter Corporation.
Around 1958, Michael Paine became the husband of Ruth Hyde (Paine), and Michael Paine joined Bell Helicopter in 1958 and was employed there in 1963. Prior to joining Bell Helicopter, Michael Paine worked directly for Young.
Ruth Hyde Paine was housing Marina Oswald at the time of the Kennedy assassination. The famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle was found in the Paine's garage.
"Had Comey not done this and something happened after she was potentially elected president, then he would have had a lot to answer for in Congress," he said. "I think it's unprecedented to have something this close to the election, but at the same time I think the American people just need to know kind of where the FBI is."
Back in 1963, the FBI was monitoring Lee Harvey Oswald, but the extent of "what happened" was withheld from the Warren Report. In March 1963, Agent James P. Hosty was ordered to keep Oswald under observation. Hosty visited the Paine house and talked to Marina. Lee Harvey Oswald went to the FBI office and asked to see Hosty. All of this was concealed from the Warren Commission.
Apart from the issue that the FBI knew about Oswald being in Dallas more than six months before the assassination in November 1963, the humor was that Hosty was trying to find out from Marina where Lee Harvey was, which caused Lee Harvey to march into the Dallas FBI headquarters and leave a note for Hosty. Hosty would come face to face with Oswald after the assassination of Kennedy and before Oswald's death.
that is shielded from receiving heat is still ‘heat sinking.’”).
Bloomberg quotes former judge Davis on ED Texas and the "troll problem"
compared to 43 percent of all new complaints a year ago.
the reasonableness of LADS’s proposed claim constructions.
It wasn’t just a few words here or there, mistakenly ingested while rummaging through old research and then innocently repeated. This was someone with a U of T doctorate in education — that, too, is now under review — who blatantly copied other people’s phrasing over and over again.
The newspaper’s public editor called Bird to let him know a reader had complained Spence’s piece had large sections copied from others, including the New York Times. Had he ever questioned Spence’s sources? “He has a doctorate and he was a published author. I wouldn’t think to ask him about sources,” Bird told the hearing.
No wonder he didn’t show up. Spence — who now works as Chicago’s head of Social Services-Family Matters — betrayed the trust of students, colleagues and parents. If found guilty of professional misconduct, the serial plagiarizer should lose his licence to teach.
One recalls that Joe Biden, who was caught plagiarizing at Syracuse Law, went on to become Vice-President.
Martha Teichner did the cover story Fighting genetic disease with help from HIV virus, which highlighted the work of Dr. Alessandra Biffi, who is now the leader of the gene therapy program at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center. The big take home message of the piece: "So far, not a single gene replacement therapy has been approved by the FDA."
Other stories Jim Axelrod on Phil Collins, receding glaciers at Glacier National Park in Montana, Lee Cowan on the "Seven Magic Mountains" off I-15 near Las Vegas, Anthony Mason on lawyer John Gresham, Mo Rocca on Maureen Dowd.
Almanac was the first plastic surgery on October 23, 1814.
There was a "buzzword" feature on the word "pivot."
Moment of nature was on the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire.
China was the first country to introduce a gene based-drug (Gendicine®), into the market in 2004. Gendicine is an adenovirus-p53 based gene therapeutic approved for the treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (Wilson, 2005). With more than 10,000 treated patients no overt adverse side effects have been reported for Gendicine®. However, the therapeutic efficacy of this drug is still controversial (Sheridan, 2011; Shi & Zheng, 2009). In Europe, alipogene tiparvovec (also known as Glybera®) was approved for the treatment of familial lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD) at the end of 2012, and thus, was the first commercially available gene therapeutic product in the Western world (Büning, 2013; Miller, 2012; Ylä-Herttuala, 2012). The marketing authorization for Glybera® clearly represents a milestone in the development of gene therapy as an accessible therapeutic option for LPLD patients. The Glybera® example also revealed the multiple layers of complexity that have to be solved before a drug-based product reaches the market. In addition to patent issues, the costs for adequate production of the advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) according to good-manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements are enormous. Moreover, costly and extensive pharmacology and toxicology studies have to be conducted in the absence of clearly defined standards, even in cases where very similar vector backbones are used. In addition, the review process and eventual authorization by the respective agencies adds another layer of complexity as exemplified by the hurdles encountered during the review process for Glybera® (as reviewed elsewhere (Bryant et al, 2013)). Thus, there are still multiple issues to be addressed in gene therapy before gene-based products enter routine clinical application to provide safe and affordable therapeutic drugs for otherwise non-treatable overt and chronic diseases.
A method of treating a an X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM) in a mammal in need thereof, the method comprising systemically administering to the mammal a composition that increases expression of myotubularin in a muscle of mammal, wherein the composition comprises an adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector comprising a nucleic acid sequence encoding the myotubularin gene (MTM 1) operably linked to a muscle specific promoter, further wherein the function of the diaphragm of the mammal is improved, as compared to the diaphragm of the mammal in the absence of administration of the composition, wherein strength is increased in the muscle.
Can an individual, unaffiliated scientist have ground-breaking ideas? Television shows say "yes".
In an earlier post, IPBiz discussed the "Callisto" episode of the CBS show "Bull," the plot of which involved a case of alleged patent infringement. Although many of the legal details were a bit sketchy, the accused infringer was an individual scientist who "improved upon" an invention disclosed in an issued US patent. Whether or not the work of the accused infringer fell within the scope of an issued claim was not discussed.
The theft was orchestrated by a criminal (character Redfern) who paid a lower level criminal ( DeLeon ) to steal the eggs, based on information obtained by bribing Ashe's assistant (Diana).
An interesting exchange: Ashe shows Gale some of his research and laughs at Gale's suggestion that he turn it over to the government.
An interesting twist in the ending. Ashe destroys his research and when Gale tries to return the eggs, Ashe says he won't be needing them anymore.
Returning to "Callisto," there was not much discussion of how an individual unaffiliated scientist could accomplish so much, and there was a suggestion of access to the patentee's work. The accused copyist in "Callisto" was working for the greater good, but the thief in "The Golden Eggs" was working for personal gain (what motivated Ashe was not clear). Neither the scientist/copyist in "Callisto" nor the scientist in "The Golden Eggs" disclosed publicly the results of the work, clearly lost in the case of "The Golden Eggs." The idea of disclosing the work in "The Golden Eggs" to the government was considered laughable, but the scientist/copyist in "Callisto" kept the information as a trade secret.
John Steed: Now the inventor's royalties alone could amount to, wow, a million pounds!
John Steed: I'm sure another one wouldn't be in the way, huh?
Mrs. Renter: Well, I'm not so sure. What with death duties, being rich hardly seems worthwhile.
GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., 789 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.
which issued after our panel decision.
under § 314(d). Nothing in Cuozzo is to the contrary.
all real parties in interest be disclosed.
would be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
The technology at issue in a small Texas town involves blood clotting. The patentee Windermere is suing a woman who furthered his research and Bull and team are working defense. The case seems to be in state court (municipal court) and the voir dire is informal. Two tornado alerts occur during the proceedings, one of which is real and one of which is staged by the Bull team.
Early on, there is talk of the patent being "obvious," and the patent for the pop-up toaster is referenced.
Later, when the plaintiff's attorney asks defendant what defendant has done, the defendant invokes trade secret.
The defense shifts to the "apple strudel" defense. A million ways to combine the ingredients but only one works like that in the local eatery.
Then, during the fake tornado alert, plaintiff and defendant end up in the same basement room, and defendant explains what she has done to the plaintiff. Back upstairs, the plaintiff drops the suit.
For trivia people, the patent number is mentioned, something like 8 117 293, but maybe one needs to listen again.
One notes US patent 6117293, titled Method for producing hydrophilic monomers and uses thereof , was issued Sep 12, 2000.
Not a good presentation of how patent litigation works, but some interesting views about how tv writers view patent law.
include oral inhalation, PTAB Op. 12, is without authority.
This mode of therapy is taught only by this inventor.
and unsupported conclusion, I respectfully dissent.
Should computers be considered inventors under US Patent Law?
this Article argues that creative computers should be considered inventors under the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. Treating nonhumans as inventors would incentivize the creation of intellectual property by encouraging the development of creative computers. This Article also addresses a host of challenges that would result from computer inventorship, including the ownership of computer-based inventions, the displacement of human inventors, and the need for consumer protection policies. This analysis applies broadly to nonhuman creators of intellectual property, and explains why the Copyright Office came to the wrong conclusion with its Human Authorship Requirement. Finally, this Article addresses how computer inventorship provides insight into other areas of patent law. For instance, computers could replace the hypothetical skilled person that courts use to judge inventiveness. Creative computers may require a rethinking of the baseline standard for inventiveness, and potentially of the entire patent system.
invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 78 F. Supp. 3d 958 (N.D.
Judgment Order, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 962–63.
ideas.’” Id. at 963 (quoting CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir.
long before the Gregory patents issued.”).
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec.
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
Inc., No. 2:12-cv-180-WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex.
performed mentally or with pencil and paper.
Claims themselves. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
fall within the excluded category of abstract ideas.”), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 119 (2015).
store and retrieve data were not unpatentably abstract.
a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
Among the glaring errors in the work, Medinsky — who states up front that the merit of a historical fact should be determined by whether it is in Russian national interests — implies that Catholicism is not a part of Christianity and does not appear to know that Denmark is in Scandinavia.
The only trouble is, the legend looks to be a lie.
Some of the soldiers said to have died valiantly, in fact, lived on for years after the alleged feat, according to new documents that have come to light.
On July 8,  the state archive published a scan of a formerly top secret, now declassified document from 1948 in which the chief Soviet military prosecutor informed powerful Soviet politburo member Andrei Zhdanov that the legend “does not correspond with reality,” saying it is based on the "fiction" of a Red Army journalist.
Historians have long said the legend of the 28 guardsmen contained glaring inaccuracies.
But the publication of these documents serves as long-sought hard evidence that lays to rest any remaining doubts, according to Andrei Zubov, a prominent Russian historian.
“The patent process is a very significant process, it’s not like an academic peer review where everyone hides behind an anonymous review, it’s all out in the open,” Shawer told Marry-Ann Russon at the International Business Times.
The program delaying patent applications is called the Sensitive Application Warning System (SWAS). Usually, when an application is submitted for a patent approval, it requires a couple of examiners who work with the Patent office to go through their process of approval. This process usually takes approximately 1 to 2 years, but applications that are filed in SAWS must be approved by several people, and can be delayed for a number of years.
One great example (out of many) of delayed patent applications comes from Dr. Gerald F. Ross. He filed a patent application for a new invention he had devised to defeat the jamming of electromagnetic transmissions at specified frequencies. It was not until June 17, 2014 (almost 37 years later) that this patent was granted (source).
CBS Sunday Morning on October 16, 2016: who invented the bumper sticker and "when" was it invented?
But then came World War II, and along with technology (including day-glo colors) and adhesive paper. It wasn’t long before somebody put them together.
That somebody was Forest Gill, of Kansas City, Missouri.
America’s post-war love affair with the automobile guaranteed that these traveling billboards got around. But tourist attractions -- not political campaigns -- were the original users.
In 1946, the Switzer Brothers ended their agreements with Continental and founded Switzer Brothers, Inc. (now Day-Glo Color Corp.), in Cleveland. Flaw detection products continued to be a large portion of their product lines, but they also expanded their research to improve daylight fluorescent pigments for commercial uses.
After a series of developments in the field, a milestone came in 1957 with the patent for a new process for producing daylight fluorescent pigments. Combining the fluorescent dyes with a new class of polymers and then milling the composition to an appropriate particle size produced material that behaved like traditional organic and inorganic pigments in printing techniques. These new pigments could be used as traditional paint and inks and had sufficient light stability to be used outdoors.
Growth in the use of fluorescent pigments for marketing and packaging took off following the War. The company made inroads by marketing their products—DayGlo brand silk-screen inks, paint, and papers—to advertisers. Their first big break in packaging came in 1959 in an application that’s still known by its DayGlo colors today: Tide® detergent. Fluorescent boxes of Tide were soon on display on grocery shelves nationwide, and fluorescent colors began to appear on an increasing number of consumer products.
Gill seized on two new technologies ­ — self-adhesive paper and Day-Glo paint — and combined them into a novelty item perfectly adapted for America’s highways. By the 1960 presidential election, bumper stickers were everywhere, rivaling buttons as a favorite way for voters to declare their intentions.
As noted, Day-Glo was not ready for "outdoor" usage (as on bumper stickers) until after 1957.
**In the "older" days of "CBS Sunday Morning", one might have expected this story to have been done by Bill Geist or Mo Rocca.
Almanac did the be-heading of Marie Antoinette.
Jane Pauley did a puff profile on Sarah Jessica Parker.
Next door is the 15-story Research Tower that Wright also designed. It opened in 1950. Its odd skeleton can best be seen at dusk.
[Frank Lloyd] Wright again wanted to allow in natural light, but instead of just plates of glass, he decided to use glass tubes instead -- 17 miles of them.
Despite having to wear sunglasses while formulating his products, he loved it.
The Tower became integral to SC Johnson’s success -- even part of its ad campaigns. It was the womb for some of the company’s most recognizable brands, from Glade air freshener to a bug’s worst nightmare. Raid was developed by Sam Johnson, Fisk’s father. It killed bugs but not plants, which at the time was revolutionary. But it was also the first of Sam Johnson’s string of products that didn’t contain any wax.
Back in September 2012, IPBiz posted on the Dylan/Timrod plagiarism controversy: Dylan: Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff.
The topic has been covered extensively in the press over the last decade with publications ranging from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal debating Dylan's legacy. Apparently, it's a thin line between being dismissed as a culture vulture and hailed as a master synthesizer in the tradition of folk and blues greats and being Awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.
In a world in which someone caught plagiarizing in law school becomes Vice-President, not really a surprise.
Now, one notes a post involving Chris Knight with sub-caption: An Ottawa food empire has left a bitter taste in the mouth of a cookbook author in Japan who alleges it stole and served up her recipes.
A lawyer for Hachisu’s publisher sent a letter in June demanding that the impugned cookbook be withdrawn from sale and any web content taken down. A letter from the Kansas City lawyer for Andrews McMeel Publishing charted alleged “infringing language” in six recipes and said the “timing, tenor and substance” of the response would help decide whether damages would be sought.
Months later, Hachisu now says she’s seeking a total of $30,000 in compensatory damages, pursuing “the principle of the matter” on her own.
But according to Gusto World Media, it will be they who file a lawsuit in Ontario shortly.
“To avoid any confusion, I wish to be clear, the One World Kitchen cookbook does not infringe any alleged rights of Ms. Hachisu,” Knight, the author of a string of cookbooks along with his work on television, said in a statement.
claims patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C.
in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct.
S. Ct. at 2360) (alteration in original).
concept—for, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . .
by human animators.” Id. at *8 (quoting U.S.
process executed on computers. Id. at *8–9.
mathematical rules articulated in McRO’s claimed method.
those results in fundamentally different ways.
out in the same way.” Id. (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
(2010); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356).
reverse as to the asserted claim of the ’610 patent.
1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
2013 Wis. L. Rev. 905, 935 (2013) (“Software patents . . .
particularly for the most innovative and productive companies.
the objective of “screen[ing] computer data for viruses . . .
Friday’s ruling is also significant because Judge Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.
IPBiz questions "insider baseball language"???
in allowing the jury to consider certain evidence on damages.
civil action for infringement of his patent.” 35 U.S.C.
includes “successors in title to the patentee.” 35 U.S.C.
Inc. v. Astechnologies, Inc., 275 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir.
their respective contributions.” Isr. Bio-Eng’g Project v.
the voluntary joinder of all co-owners.” Id. at 1264–65.
is viewed as a defense to the claim of infringement.” Id.
against it after it failed to produce the source code.
Procedure and the district’s local patent rules. See W.D.
specifications, schematics, and flow charts. J.A. 578–83.
July 1 Order. In it, Parrot made three requests. J.A. 698.
“extremely sensitive technical information.” J.A. 703–04.
its view, those products were not accused of infringement.
the court’s docket that does not include a written analysis).
to be evaluated on appeal.
Nat’l Bank of Jackson, 614 F.2d 1004, 1007–08 (5th Cir.
course would obviate the need for a Poulis analysis.
F.2d 1351, 1356 (5th Cir. 1978)); John T. ex rel. Paul T. v.
Del. Cty. Intermediate Unit, 318 F.3d 545, 559 (3d Cir.
is to conduct a Poulis analysis.
default sanction instead of holding Parrot in contempt.
answer and counterclaims. Id. at 266; J.A. 42.
substantial funds, time, and energy” on motions practice.
“relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”12 Fed. R. Civ.
order attached to Drone’s Initial Motion. J.A. 597.
actions based on the rules then in effect.
While current Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) contains several discovery-limiting considerations, federal courts have often overlooked these considerations and rarely invoked them to tighten the scope of discovery. By explicitly linking a proportionality mandate to a narrowed scope of discovery, the 2015 Rule 26(b)(1) amendments recognize that discovery necessarily involves a balancing of interests and need not stretch beyond the particular needs of the claims and defenses actually asserted.
The proportionality and scope considerations of Rule 26(b)(1) will be buttressed by an addition to Rule 26(c)(1)(B) that will authorize protective orders that include “allocation of expenses” arising from discovery. This new provision will provide a basis for recourse to those parties who face abusive discovery purposely served to drive up the cost of litigation to painful levels. Further, connecting the cost of discovery to the party who seeks to benefit from the discovery will cause parties to consider more closely whether those requests or interrogatories are truly necessary to support the propounding party’s case.
See Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1155, 1164–65 (2002) (“Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit’s peculiar direction in the software enablement cases has effectively nullified the disclosure requirement for software patents. And since source code is normally kept secret, software patentees generally disclose little or no detail about their programs to the public.” (footnote omitted)). Here, for example, the ‘610 patent discusses the objective of “screen[ing] computer data for viruses … before communicating the computer data to an end user,” ‘610 patent, col. 1 ll. 59–61, but fails to disclose any specific, inventive guidance for achieving that goal. In effect, the ‘610 patent, like most software patents, describes a desirable destination but neglects to provide any intelligible roadmap for getting there.

References: v. 
 § 314
 § 315
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.