Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2017/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:26:21+00:00

Document:
The TC Heartland case pits a Supreme Court decision against later Congressional changes to venue.
The justices acknowledged that their case from 1957 seemed definitive.
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has basically rewritten the rules from what the Supreme Court set.
“we can be pretty confident that Congress is acting against the backdrop of that decision,” she said.
On Monday, Justice Elena Kagan noted a curiosity about the 1990 decision: It was at odds with a 1957 Supreme Court precedent. She sounded surprisingly sanguine about this state of affairs.
“For 30 years the Federal Circuit has been ignoring our decision, and the law has effectively been otherwise,” she said.
statute declared to exist in its Fourco Glass decision.
that are set out in the amici briefs.
corporation, why do we have this case here deciding?
corporation, nor are you. So what do we do?
we supposed to decide that?
Story of professor stealing work of student reprises the "Big Bang" episode of "Law and Order"
In an early episode of "Law and Order" entitled "Big Bang," a journal reviewer (who happened to have been an advisor to the article submitter) gave an unfavorable review and stole the work of the submitter, a former student. Fast forward twenty years, and one sees a similar (real) story in Canada.
University of Regina engineering professor Shahid Azam has been reprimanded by Saskatchewan's engineering association for plagiarizing the work of one of his master's students.
A December 2016 report by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Saskatchewan (APEGS) says the evidence shows Azam published an academic paper but "failed to acknowledge the contribution of [co-author and student Arjun Paul] to the submitted academic paper."
In 2014, Azam published the article in the journal Environmental Geotechnics. When Paul saw it, he complained to the journal and APEGS, alleging his professor had plagiarized his work.
APEGS isn't the first body to have raised concerns.
Following an investigation in 2014, Environmental Geotechnics decided to withdraw the paper after concluding Azam "had not fully credited Arjun Paul's thesis."
The CAFC reversed PTAB in the Chudik case, 2016-1817.
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951).
Board’s rejection of those claims.
The LEXIS citation for the case is 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5267 .
Headnote 2: A patent claim is invalid for anticipation under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102 when a prior art reference describes each and every claim limitation and enables one of skill in the art to practice an embodiment of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Simply put, an anticipated invention is not new. By contrast, a prior art reference that must be distorted from its obvious design does not anticipate a patent claim. In other words, a prior art reference anticipates a claim only if it discloses all the elements in the same form and order as in the claim.
The citation for the first part of headnote 2 is ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
as accepted by the FDA, was established, and the PTAB reasoning was problematic.
Flash forward to a different IPR against US 8,399,514 brought by Kyle Bass and others.
RRMS over 24 weeks of treatment.
Ex. 1003A, p. 2 (emphasis added).
in hopes of identifying effective dose with fewer side-effects.
a reasonable expectation of success in determining additional therapeutically effective doses.
relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis [RRMS] BECAUSE OF the MRI results.
Biogen argues, inter alia, that “[t]he magnitude of the clinical efficacy exhibited by administering the 480 mg/day dose was unexpected.” Biogen Res., Paper 38, pp. 43-49. (...) [Studies] establish “surprisingly—that a 480 mg/day dose of DMF proved to have similar efficacy” to the 720 mg/day taught by Kappos 2006 for almost every end point measured.
Biogen’s evidence of unexpected results includes the testimony of Ronald A. Thisted, Ph.D (Thisted Test., Ex. 2038); Richard C. Brundage, Pharm. D., Ph.D (Brundage Test., Ex. 2042) and Richard A. Rudick, M.D. (Rudick Test., Ex. 2044).
It is known to those developing new drugs or treatments that there may be a plateau in the dose-response curve in which the increase in the dose does not significantly change the effect of the drug. ICH, p. 10. However, Drs. Thisted, Brundage and Rudick, testify to the effect that one having ordinary skill in the art would not have expected the 480 and 720 mg/day doses to be on such a plateau. All three experts testify that one skilled in the art would have expected the efficacy of 480 mg/day to be closer to that of 360 mg/day, a dose which did not have a statistically significant effect, than to 720 mg/day dose described in Kappos 2006.
mg/day dose than a 720 mg/day dose.
Kyle Bass lost his attack on Biogen's MS drug Tecfidera.
The issue was one of obviousness, and the case turned on "unexpected" results.
effective ingredients for treating relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis from the prior art.
would have been motivated to try lower concentrations, simply to reduce side effects.
departments of Statistics, Public Health Sciences, and Anesthesia & Critical Care.
the University of Chicago since 1976.
at the specifically claimed dose of about 480 mg/day would have been unexpected.
480 mg/day treatment would have been unexpected by those working in the art.
subject matter of Biogen’s claim 20 would have been obvious.
routine optimization, does this negate the obviousness of seeking those results?
as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.”).
District of California for infringement of U.S. Patent No.
issue is not subject to this appeal.
Claim construction arguments had not been preserved.
the jury verdict is supported by substantial evidence.
construction supports the jury’s verdict of invalidity.
non-infringement was harmless. Cf. Senju Pharm. Co.
Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1173 (Fed. Cir.
Max Planck, represented by MORGAN CHU of Irell & Manella LLP, loses.
article. In addition to summarizing current research, Dr.
the 3’ ends of dsRNA.
needed to establish joint inventorship. J.A. 4073−76.
prevailed on the inventorship issue. BUT, at what cost to Max Planck?
this was simply an issue of naming inventors, not one of patent infringement.
indicates that UUtah knew its claim was meritless.
"Alternative facts" arising from mis-identified photos?
However, there was a brief moment of shock and in some instances anger after MLB Network mistakenly aired a graphic featuring Puerto Rico star Javier Baez with the Dominican Republic flag behind him.
The initial story was an homage to Chuck Berry done by Anthony Mason. Included within was an old videoclip of Charles Osgood interviewing Berry. The cover story was on who is the happiest country done by Faith Salie. The happiest country was deemed to be Denmark, termed a "social democracy." The key terms were hygge and "law of Jante." Salie noted that Denmark also has the highest cancer rate in the world. The almanac feature was March 19, 1982, the day Argentinian forces occupied South Georgia. The clip also featured the days April 2, April 25 (South Georgia retaken), the sinking of the Belgrano (which as a previous US ship had survived Pearl Harbor) and of the Sheffield. Almanac presented an old clip on the story done by Martha Teichner. The clip ended with sound and fury signifying the status quo. There was a piece on Marie Kondo with her trademark "spark joy."
Serena Alschul did a piece on Betsey Johnson, who made clothes which were viewed as a little costume. Lee Cowan on a museum on the (past) lights of Las Vegas. Mo Rocca on Mario Andretti, with clips of Nazareth, PA. Martha Teichner on the food of Ireland. Jim Gaffigan on winter sports.
The headlines for March 19 included FBI director Comey, Paris Orly Airport, mudslides in Peru, and Villanova losing in college basketball.
Moment of Nature was Organ Pipe National Monument.
Update. Sadly, "Sunday Morning's" report on Denmark quickly became "stale news."
In one aspect of this disclosure, there is provided a method for configuring wireless power and data transfer between consumer electronic (CE) devices. The method comprises identifying a plurality of antenna systems including at least a first antenna system and a second antenna system, wherein at least the first antenna system is cooperated with a first CE device and the second antenna system is cooperated with a separate second CE device, wherein each of the plurality of antenna systems comprises a power transfer antenna and one or more communications antennas, wherein the power transfer antennas is configured to enable wireless electrical power transfer between the power transfer antenna and at least one other power transfer antenna of another one of the plurality of antenna systems, and wherein each of the one or more communications antennas is configured to enable wirelessly transmitting and receiving communications with at least one further communications antenna. The method further comprises providing a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to illustrate each of the identified antenna systems and communicational relationships between each of the identified antenna systems, and wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to enable a user to interact with the graphical user interface. The method comprises receiving, through the graphical user interface, user instructions corresponding to at least two of the identified antenna systems, wherein the user instructions include wireless coupling configurations dictating how at least one of the identified antenna systems is to wirelessly transfer power to at least one other of the identified antenna systems or how at least one of the identified antenna systems is to wirelessly transfer data to at least one other of the identified antenna systems. The method comprises generating configuration instructions in accordance with the wireless coupling configurations and causing communication of the configuration instructions to selected CE devices to direct each of the identified antenna systems to be configured in accordance with the configuration instructions.
A method for configuring wireless power and data transfer between consumer electronic (CE) devices, the method comprising: identifying a plurality of antenna systems including at least a first antenna system and a second antenna system, wherein at least the first antenna system is cooperated with a first CE device and the second antenna system is cooperated with a separate second CE device, wherein each of the plurality of antenna systems comprises a power transfer antenna and one or more communications antennas, wherein the power transfer antennas is configured to enable wireless electrical power transfer between the power transfer antenna and at least one other power transfer antenna of another one of the plurality of antenna systems; and wherein each of the one or more communications antennas is configured to enable wirelessly transmitting and receiving communications with at least one further communications antenna; providing a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to illustrate each of the identified antenna systems and communicational relationships between each of the identified antenna systems, wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to enable a user to interact with the graphical user interface; receiving, through the graphical user interface, user instructions corresponding to at least two of the identified antenna systems, wherein the user instructions include wireless coupling configurations dictating how at least one of the identified antenna systems is to wirelessly transfer power to at least one other of the identified antenna systems or how at least one of the identified antenna systems is to wirelessly transfer data to at least one other of the identified antenna systems; generating configuration instructions in accordance with the wireless coupling configurations; and causing communication of the configuration instructions to selected CE devices to direct each of the identified antenna systems to be configured in accordance with the configuration instructions.
Trump's "Irish proverb": who actually authored it and who copied it?
"My sister just brought the news to me. I didn't want to believe what she said initially,"
Albasheer Adam Alhassan, a Nigerian banker who wrote the poem in college, said.
"I posted those things when I was back in school, over 10 years ago. I never thought it would get to this level."
Many on Twitter were thrilled to find the poem seemed to have been written by Nigerian poet Albashir Adam Alhassan. The poem appears under his name on PoemHunter, a website which collects famous poems as well as those submitted by users. Alhassan’s was submitted on 22 January 2013.
But this poem is all over the place. And we’re not just talking random websites festooned with shamrocks and more Irish stereotypes than an Ed Sheeran track. It appears in many motivational and quote collection books.
It’s on page 388 of Crystal Inspirations by Joanne Tuttle, published in 2012. It appears on page 325 of the Speaker’s Quote Book by Roy B Zuck, published in 1997.
The earliest appearance, at least as far as Google Books is concerned, is in volume 31 of the International Stereotypers’ and Electrotypers’ Union Journal, published in 1936 in America.
Synopsys’ ’526 patent lacks patent-eligible subject matter.
of the ’376 patent. J.A. 40,545–47. We reverse.
did not seek a preliminary injunction.
phrase is not error. See Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Accordingly, the Court will exclude the use of the phrase “presumption of validity” and instead will address the burden of proof in its instructions to the jury.
First, Chiron argued that the district court had erred by instructing the jury on Genentech’s burden of proof without adding a jury instruction on the presumption of validity of the ‘561 patent. The Federal Circuit disagreed, stating that the presumption of validity and heightened burden of proving invalidity are different expressions of the same thing.
the same thing – a single hurdle to be cleared.” (...) “[T]he presumption is one of law, not fact, and does not constitute ‘evidence’ to be weighed against the challenger’s evidence.” ] The issue in Chiron was not about the exclusion of a term before the jury.
One notes that Judge Bryson used the term "error" rather than referring to "abuse of discretion."
In cases related to FRE 403, the usual standard of review is "abuse of discretion."
the nature of the broad discretion granted to trial courts determining evidentiary matters. Gray ex rel. Alexander v. Bostic, 720 F.3d 887, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the abuse of discretion standard implies a range of choices). And this discretion is particularly broad with respect to Rule 403 determinations. Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, 552 U.S. 379, 384–85, 128 S. Ct. 1140, 1145 (2008). A district court abuses its discretion to admit relevant evidence when its decision rests on  a clearly erroneous fact-finding, “an  errant conclusion of law, or  an improper application of law to fact.” Fid. Interior Constr., Inc. [v. Se. Carpenters Reg’l Council of the United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am.], 675 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Nothing suggests that the district court’s decision allowing the dog to remain present as a demonstrative exhibit rested on any of the three.
In Uropep, the excluded material was a statement of law. In Bhogaita, the included material was the presence of a dog.
Generally appellate review of a trial judge's evidentiary decision accords the trial court considerable discretion under the abuse of discretion standard of review.
Accusations of plagiarism against high profile people tend to be politically motivated. The various SIU matters were politically motivated; the Biden/Kinnock business was politically motivated, etc.
There remains the issue of whether there was copying without attribution.
for JMOL/new trial and lost the appeal thereof at the CAFC.
added prejudgment interest to the damages award.
the district court’s entry of judgment against Sprint.
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860, 872 (Fed.
damages for each patent. See id.
might be well taken, they are not here.
should take the form of a lump sum royalty payment.
technology. Id. at 4593–95; id. at 5002–03.
interest against Sprint based on the entire royalty award.
(quoting Gen. Motors Corp., 461 U.S. at 655)); cf.
Stickle v. Heublein, Inc., 716 F.2d 1550, 1561 n.8 (Fed.
royalties for each patent he holds.”).
in the district court’s allowing of Mr. Minor’s testimony.
order makes clear the court’s determination that Mr.
is sufficient evidence to support an affirmative answer to that question.
its remedy contention on Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v.
conclude that no such abuse occurred.
U.S. 172, 183 n.7 (1997); United States v. Abel, 469 U.S.
Prods., Inc., 112 F.3d 1137, 1145–46 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
cost of the settlement package.” Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S.
right to call on the courts. See, e.g., Crown Die & Tool Co.
Bloomer v. McQuewan, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 539, 549 (1852).
LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283, 1296 (Fed. Cir.
except for closing arguments and jury deliberations.
of litigation-cost avoidance in the settlement decision.
were still open issues at the time of the settlement.
Settlement Agreement must be excluded.
The appellant, Marcellus S. Hartman, served in the Army from 1969 to 1972, including a year in Vietnam. In 1986 he wrote to the Department's regional office that because of his post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), his time for utilizing his veteran's educational benefits should be extended.
Hartman primarily contends that the Veterans Court failed to consider this argument because it did not explicitly address it. “That the court did not specifically mention the [argument] in its opinion forms no basis for an assumption that it did not consider [it]․ That a court ‘do[es] not discuss certain propositions do[es] not make the decision inadequate or suggest the ․ court failed to understand them.’ ” Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 901 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting Schilling v. Schwitzer-Cummins Co., 142 F.2d 82, 84 (D.C.Cir.1944)). The court may have merely concluded, for various reasons, that discussion of the issue was neither necessary nor appropriate.
A “ ‘litigant's right to have all issues fully considered and ruled on by the appellate court does not equate to a right to a full written opinion on every issue raised.’ ” Bernklau v. Principi, 291 F.3d 795, 801 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting United States v. Garza, 165 F.3d 312, 314 (5th Cir.1999)). Here, the Veterans Court stated that “Mr. Hartman has not demonstrated that the Board committed prejudicial error in its findings of fact, conclusions of law, compliance with procedural requirements, articulation of reasons or bases, or application of the equipoise standard that would warrant reversal or remand.” Dingess, 19 Vet.App. at 501. “While it may be desirable in some cases to afford each issue a complete written discussion, no statute or rule compels such an approach by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (or indeed any other court).” Bernklau, 291 F.3d at 801 (citation omitted). Hartman's contention that the Veterans Court did not properly consider his argument fails.
he relied for his appeal did not prevail."
misapprehends the relevant legal principles.
by building its own private backhaul network.
of “entire oscillator,” we vacate and remand.
its invention may give rise to prosecution disclaimer.
reference; patentees may surrender more than necessary.
(Fed. Cir. 2005); Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v.
Sportsline.com, Inc., 287 F.3d 1108, 1114–15 (Fed. Cir.
needed to disclaim during prosecution.
input . . . to change the clock speed.” J.A. 2127.
The Editors of the Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering have retracted this paper on request of the senior named author, Professor Jong Moon Park. The paper was written and submitted to KJCE by the corresponding author, Tsolmonbaatar Batbileg, former student of Prof Park, without the knowledge or permission of Prof Park. The second named author, Dr Xu Xu, was also unaware of the writing or submission of the manuscript. The paper contained fabricated data and a substantial amount of material plagiarised from the following published articles: Production of biodiesel from carbon sources of macroalgae, Laminaria japonica Bioresource Technology 169 (2014) 455–461 Xu Xu, Ji Young Kim, Yu Ri Oh, Jong Moon Park Bioconversion of volatile fatty acids from macroalgae fermentation into microbial lipids by oleaginous yeast Chemical Engineering Journal 264 (2015) 735–743 Xu Xu, Ji Young Kim, Hyun Uk Cho, Hye Rim Park and Jong Moon Park Professor Park apologizes to the readers of KJCE for the unethical actions of Mr Batbileg.
One remembers some of the confusion in the Hwang Woo Suk matter, in which it was not clear that the senior author was aware of all the underlying facts of the papers published in the journal Science.

References: v. 
 § 102
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.