Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2016/05/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 22:24:52+00:00

Document:
limited to wired rather than wireless communications.
reason to limit the scope of the claims to wired communication.
Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
There is a New Jersey connection. The first named inventor [Hui Jin] of Caltech's 7,116,710 has a listed address in Glen Gardner, NJ.
Of the '710 patent, note: The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of Grant No. CCR-9804793 awarded by the National Science Foundation.
As to related cases: This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/205,095, filed on May 18, 2000, and to U.S. application Ser. No. 09/922,852, filed on Aug. 18, 2000 and entitled Interleaved Serial Concatenation Forming Turbo-Like Codes.
Properties of a channel affect the amount of data that can be handled by the channel. The so-called "Shannon limit" defines the theoretical limit of the amount of data that a channel can carry.
Different techniques have been used to increase the data rate that can be handled by a channel. "Near Shannon Limit Error-Correcting Coding and Decoding: Turbo Codes," by Berrou et al. ICC, pp 1064 1070, (1993), described a new "turbo code" technique that has revolutionized the field of error correcting codes. Turbo codes have sufficient randomness to allow reliable communication over the channel at a high data rate near capacity. However, they still retain sufficient structure to allow practical encoding and decoding algorithms. Still, the technique for encoding and decoding turbo codes can be relatively complex.
Hickenlooper on Face the Nation: an inaccurate (and Whiggish) view of the cola wars?
Fast forward to May 29, 2016, and Hickenlooper brings up the same Coke/Pepsi story on "Face the Nation."
One wonders if Hickenlooper was around for the "The Pepsi Challenge," the "New Coke" story and Roger Enrico's book: The Other Guy Blinked: How Pepsi Won the Cola Wars.
Or, the 1996 article in Fortune: How Coke is Kicking Pepsi's Can.
existed in the cola wars (and elsewhere in private industry) and there is no evidence of an inevitable progression and improvement.
It certainly is not due to superior equipment because the equipment is identically the same. It is not due to greater comfort, for if anything, it is more comfortable to travel on the Broadway because it is not crowded. You do not have to fight your way through a crowd to get into the diner, nor walk through an endless maze of sleepers to reach the observation car, only to find every seat taken. On the Broadway there is always plenty of room in the library car and it is seldom that you cannot get a seat on the observation platform.
The Century has been advertised from hill to hamlet the country over.
When the Century leaves the station in every seat there is a stamped, colored postcard of the “Finest Train in the World,” ready for you to mail to one of your friends, and you may be sure that nine-tenths of them are mailed. You can always think of some excuse to let some one know that you making the trip to New York on the Century.
“It's past time for all this craziness to stop,” declared James Pooley, a U.S. patent attorney and former top WIPO official who launched a formal complaint against Gurry last year, which led to the WIPO director general’s investigation.
The fact is, however, that Gurry’s ability to surprise, outmaneuver and stonewall WIPO’s supposed nation-state owners over the past several years has provided numerous examples of the profound lack of control exercised by countries over supposedly subordinate U.N. institutions—and the ability of U.N. bureaucrats to make up their own rules and methods of behavior.
Chronicle of Higher Education: "Another reason for the chronic plagiarism is the attitude that it doesn't matter"
Another reason for the chronic plagiarism is the attitude that it doesn't matter. I've been told by employees of the local copy shop that more than one student has had a paper faxed to them by their friends or parents. I asked the copy shop workers, who were also students at the college, why they didn't report this breach of the honor code, and they said they didn't know it was wrong and they certainly didn't think it was their responsibility. In other situations, students have said that they knew it was wrong, but insisted that it wasn't so bad and that, besides, everyone is doing it, and they'll never do it again. Right.
One observes that Joe Biden was caught plagiarizing a paper as a 1L at Syracuse Law School, given an F, and forced to re-take the course. Biden went on to become a U.S. Senator and then Vice-President.
As to --the attitude that it doesn't matter -- such attitude has existed for a LONG time.
Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam owns U.S. Patent No.
16, but designated a new ground of rejection for claim 16.
1289, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Copelands’ Enters., Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”).
for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R.
jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision.
Netzer Consulting appeal to CAFC re: summary judgment fails; what is "fractionation"?
about 80 wt % benzene.
extraction methods that produce 99.9% pure benzene.
Aqua Products, Inc. (“Aqua”) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 (“’183 patent”). The Board denied Aqua’s motion to substitute claims 22–24. Aqua challenges the Board’s amendment procedures, which require the patentee to demonstrate that the amended claims would be patentable over the art of record. We affirm.
In its motion to amend, Aqua argued that the combination of Henkin and Myers does not render the substitute claims obvious because it does not suggest the vector limitation. J.A. 2289–91. Although Aqua referenced the other added limitations, it did not argue that those other limitations would have been non-obvious in light of Henkin and Myers. Regarding objective indicia, Aqua characterized its commercial embodiments as “successful” and it implied that Zodiac may have copied the design, but Aqua did not argue that these objective indicia were tied to the vector limitation or that they otherwise demonstrated that the vector limitation was non-obvious. J.A. 2288. The Board denied Aqua’s motion to amend. It reasoned that the vector limitation would have been obvious because Henkin teaches positioning the jet at an angle that satisfies the vector limitation.
Aqua appeals the Board’s denial of its motion to amend. Aqua argues that Board regulations requiring the patentee to demonstrate that an amended claim is patentable over the art of record are unsupported by statute, and that the Board’s interpretation of those regulations impermissibly places the burden on the patentee to show non-obviousness. Moreover, Aqua argues that the Board abused its discretion by denying the motion to amend without considering all the new limitations and the objective indicia of non-obviousness, as would be required for invalidating an original claim.
Our precedent has upheld the Board’s approach of allocating to the patentee the burden of showing that its proposed amendments would overcome the art of record. In Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., 789 F.3d 1292, 1307−08 (Fed. Cir. 2015), we upheld the Board’s interpretation of its regulations, requiring the patentee to establish that proposed amendments would overcome the art of record. See also Prolitec, Inc. v. ScentAir Techs., Inc., 807 F.3d 1353, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Nike, Inc. v. Adidas AG, 812 F.3d 1326, 1333−34 (Fed. Cir. 2016), we further held that the Board’s regulations concerning motions to amend and its interpretation thereof are consistent with the AIA’s statutory framework, even though the framework generally places the burden of proving unpatentability on the IPR petitioner. Given our precedent, this panel cannot revisit the question of whether the Board may require the patentee to demonstrate the patentability of substitute claims over the art of record. The only issue left open for our consideration is whether the Board abused its discretion by failing to evaluate objective indicia of non-obviousness and various new limitations in the proposed claims, even though Aqua did not argue that those indicia and limitations distinguish the proposed claims over the combination of Henkin and Myers. We find no abuse of discretion.
At issue were $28 million in supplemental damages plus interest that a federal judge awarded to Dow for Nova's infringement of its patents from January 2010 to October 2011, when the patents expired.
if the proceeding has reached the stage of final judgment.
concluded at the time of Nautilus.
so the supplemental damages evaporated.
have been different under the new Nautilus standard.
the art could arrive at a method and practice that method.
slope. See id. at 919–20.
Under Nautilus this is no longer sufficient.
The report only included one expulsion, which was given to a Chemistry doctoral student who was found to have sold “ghostwriting services and academic work, supposedly done by current students in the University” to parties unaffiliated with the University.
Two of the four cases involved a student in the Law School who was issued a No-Contact Directive, mandatory counselling, and restrictions on course and event registration, after being found responsible for dating violence against another student. The same individual was later suspended for one quarter after failing to follow the directive.
After decades of absence from the University of Chicago and a period commuting to classes at other universities, the University of Chicago’s Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) is reestablishing itself on campus.
retraction of a self-plagiarized journal article.
Prompted by an inquiry sent to us on 14 November 2015, The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) has conducted an editorial review of the publication of “Axisymmetric, Nonstationary Black Hole Magnetospheres: Revisited” by Yoo Geun Song & Seok Jae Park, 2015 October 10, ApJ, Vol. 812, No. 1, Art. 8. Ethan Vishniac, the ApJ Editor-in-Chief, supervised Dr. Park’s dissertation research at the University of Texas in the 1980s, so Dr. Vishniac recused himself. This statement includes the review's findings and recommendations.
Song & Park (2015) draws extensively from an earlier publication by Dr. Park, “Stationary Versus Nonstationary Force-Free Black Hole Magnetospheres," in Black Hole Astrophysics 2002: Proceedings of the Sixth APCTP Winter School (World Scientific Publishing Co., 2002).
The 2015 paper failed to include a citation to the 2002 publication.
Plagiarism is the act of reproducing text or other materials from other papers without properly crediting the source. Such material is regarded as being plagiarized regardless of whether it is cited literally or has been modified or paraphrased. Plagiarism represents a serious ethical breach, and may constitute legal breach of copyright if the reproduced material has been previously published. This includes repeating text from previously published papers by the author or authors (i.e., “self-plagiarism”). Authors who wish to quote directly from other published work must fully cite the original reference, and include any cited text in quotation marks. AJ and ApJ authors are discouraged from including such direct quotations in papers, apart from rare instances when such a quotation is appropriate for historical reasons. Figures may only be reproduced with permission and must be fully cited in the figure caption, following guidelines that are posted on the ApJ and AJ websites.
Charles Osgood did the design issue of CBS Sunday Morning on May 22, 2016 from Newport, Rhode Island.
Martha Teichner did the cover story: Dressing down: The rise of athleisure. Lee Cowan did urban architecture.
Another invention in small wonders was the take-out box for Chinese food. Spencer noted: And, it's a uniquely American creation. It was patented in 1894 by Chicago inventor Frederick Weeks Wilcox.
Some IP issues in the vehicle industry: from the Selden patent to the "Jake Brake"
Relevant to the topic of George Selden as a patent troll victimizing, among others, automaker Henry Ford, LBE wrote an article titled "Looking Backward" which appears at page 20 of Intellectual Property Today [IPT] in June 2001, which is about fifteen years prior to the present May 2016.
At the time of the litigation, the "Selden patent" had passed through the hands of electric car makers, and ended up in the control of an association of prior troll victims, who were competitors of Ford. Ford won on non-infringement grounds (not on invalidity of the "Selden patent") and at the time of Ford's victory, the Selden patent had about one year of life left. The Ford decision is reported at Columbia Motor Car Co. v. C. A. Duerr, 184 F. 893 (CA 2 1911).
Of relevance to other vehicles, the first Indianapolis 500 was in the year 1911. Ray Harroun’s Marmon Wasp was the winner, and a member of the pit crew was a man named Clessie Cummins. Indiana banker William Irwin was one of a Harroun’s backers and Irwin hired Cummins as a chaffeur and mechanic. In the year 1912, gasoline, in contrast to kerosene, was not readily available and Cummins began experimenting with kerosene as a fuel. By 1920, Cummins was producing a diesel engine, based on IP of Rasmus Martin Hvid. In 1931 a vehicle with a modified Cummins Model U engine, the Cummins-Duesenberg, finished the Indianapolis 500 with an average speed of 86.170 mph and is the only vehicle to complete the Indy 500 without a stop.
Jacobs claims that the use of the term "Jake Brakes" on signs prohibiting engine retarding brakes violates their trademark and discriminates against Jacobs brand products. IPBiz notes that Jacobs needs to fight uses of "Jake Brake" that would tend to make the term generic for all compression brake systems.
The company's [Jacobs] success at enforcing its "Jake Brakes" trademark has gone beyond just challenging its use on highway signs. Mr. Stawski said Jacobs Vehicle Systems has raised the issue of inappropriate use in cases involving musical groups, race horses and snowboards, among others.
And, as it looks to protect its trademark, Mr. Stawski said his company has found the Internet to be a powerful tool in identifying possible violations.
In addition to explaining what Jake Brakes are and how they work, the Jacobs Vehicle Systems' Web site discusses the trademark infringement issue and asks visitors to the site to e-mail the company with information about any "brand-specific" street signs they've seen.
“Jake brakes” are a type of engine compression brake used on heavy duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Jacobs and not to those made by other companies.
defective equipment ticket, just as he or she could for a missing taillight.
specifically as possible, without compromising safety.
and would separately be constitutionally overbroad.
Apart from the trademark issue, is a ban on the use of compression brakes generally enforceable?
The use of compression brakes is not synonymous with the presence of noise.
would not have been obvious.
our opinion in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.
See In re Rambus Inc. , 69 4 F.3d 42, 46 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
motivation “should be made explicit”).
to ensure that the motor did not move relative to the motor mounting structure.
Perverse incentives for plagiarism from " jail time reduction " for publishing program?
IPBiz notes the peculiar plagiarism issue presented in the post Romania’s prison literature: Local businessman investigated for plagiarism.
Apparently, in Romania, prison inmates can get reductions in sentences for writing books or publications while in prison. One might suspect that this might offer inmates an incentive to plagiarize.
The scandal started when a young Romanian historian, Catalin Parfene, said that Copos had plagiarized his dissertation, which he had presented at Bucharest University’s History Faculty in 2005. Moreover, the professor who helped Parfene with his paper also wrote the preface to Copos’ book.
Hmmm, in the past IPBiz has discussed students accusing their advisors of stealing patent rights, but therein the professor was directly appropriating the work of the student. A twist would be the professor transferring the work to a third party.
The CAFC explores the question of transfer of all substantial patent rights in the appeal by DIAMOND COATING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.
Agreements transferring patent rights occur by assignment or license. “An assignment of patent rights operates to transfer title to the patent, while a license leaves title in the patent owner” and transfers something less than full title and rights. Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 95 F.3d 1109, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). “To create an assignment, a contract must transfer: (1) the entire exclusive patent right, (2) an undivided interest in the patent rights, or (3) the entire exclusive right within any geographical region of the United States.” Id. at 1117 (citation omitted). “An agreement that does not transfer one of these three interests is merely a license.” Id. (citation omitted).
We treat an agreement granting patent rights as a contract and interpret its terms consistent with the choice of law provision in the agreement in question. See Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The PATA states that New York law governs the interpretation of its terms, J.A. 219, and under that law we review the District Court’s interpretation of the PATA de novo, Dreisinger v. Teglasi, 13 N.Y.S.3d 432, 435 (App. Div. 2015). In this case, Diamond asserts “patentee” status only as the alleged recipient of “the entire exclusive patent right” (not an undivided interest or a geographically limited entire exclusive right). On its face, “the entire exclusive patent right” must include all substantial rights in the patent. We have not allowed labels to control by treating bare formalities of “title” transfer as sufficient to determine that an “assignment” of the entire exclusive right has occurred. Rather, we have explained that, “[t]o determine whether a provision in an agreement constitutes an assignment or license, one must . . . examine the substance of what was granted.” Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.p.A., 944 F.2d 870, 874 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see Waterman v. Mackenzie, 138 U.S. 252, 256 (1891); Prima Tek II, L.L.C. v. A-Roo Co., 222 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“When . . . multiple inventors are listed on the face of the patent, each co-owner presumptively owns a pro rata undivided interest in the entire patent, no matter what their respective contributions.” Isr. Bio-Eng’g Project v. Amgen, Inc., 475 F.3d 1256, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
We therefore must ask whether Diamond received all substantial rights in the patents-in-suit or, instead, whether Sanyo retained substantial rights. Unless Diamond received all substantial rights in the patents-in-suit at the time it filed suit in the District Court, it was not a “patentee” (allegedly without a joint owner). If Diamond was not a patentee, it could not bring this suit by itself. And since Diamond did not take the opportunity provided by the District Court to join Sanyo, the District Court properly dismissed the suit. See, e.g., Alfred E. Mann, 604 F.3d at 1360.
As to the original agreement, the CAFC agreed with the district court that the original agreements did NOT transfer all substantial rights.
Following the District Court’s decision in Diamond, Diamond and Sanyo executed nunc pro tunc agreements,6 purportedly “to clarify the parties’ original intent; namely, to grant full ownership of the patents in question to [Diamond].” Appellant’s Br. 12. Diamond asserts these nunc pro tunc agreements effectively establish Diamond’s status as a patentee. Id. at 43. We conclude they do not.
In Alps South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., we held that “[n]unc pro tunc assignments are not sufficient to confer retroactive [patentee status].” 787 F.3d 1379, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted).
and do not reach the § 112 ¶6 issue.
and administering digital images.” Appellant’s Br. 28.
new server, or a new physical combination of the two.
image pick up unit for recording images,” id. at col. 5 ll.
capability,” id. at col. 1 ll. 52–59.
problems unique to the Internet, . . . DDR has no applicability.”).
methods of organizing human activity”).
1. A method for determining printability of an electronic file, the method comprising: electronically receiving a file for printing; parsing the file for one or more of text, images, and formatting indicative of potential copyrighted material; responsive to identifying any text, images, or formatting indicative of potential copyrighted material, identifying, by one or more computer processors, potential copyrighted material within the file; and determining, by one or more computer processors, whether the file may be printed based, at least in part, on the identified potential copyrighted material.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein text indicative of copyrighted material include keywords, ISBN numbers, and ISSN numbers; wherein images indicative of copyrighted material include copyright symbols and barcodes; and wherein formatting indicative of copyrighted material includes use of stanza, drop cap based print, and text in columns.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the potential copyrighted material within the file comprises, based on location within the file of the identified text, images, or formatting indicative of potential copyrighted material, selecting at least one portion of the file corresponding to the location.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the file may be printed based, at least in part, on the identified potential copyrighted material comprises: matching at least a portion of the identified potential copyrighted material to approved material, wherein approved material comprises one or both of: material to which a copyright or license is owned by a designated entity and material which has been designated as printable.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the file may be printed based, at least in part, on the identified potential copyrighted material comprises: searching one or more online resources for the potential copyrighted material; and responsive to failing to match the potential copyrighted material to existing material, determining that the file is printable.
The associated US case was filed April 15, 2015.
12. A method for determining printability of an electronic document, the method comprising: electronically receiving a document for printing; locating attributes associated with the document and stored in a separate database, wherein the attributes include one or more of the following: ownership, licensing information, printability, and number of prints allowed; determining that the document is printable based on the attributes; and printing the document.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein locating the attributes associated with the document comprises matching one or more attributes of a set of attributes associated with the document with embedded attributes of the document, including one or more of: document title, version number, date of creation, and text.
14. The method of claim 12, wherein determining that the document is printable comprises at least one of the following: determining that the printability attribute indicates that the document in printable; determining that the ownership attribute indicates that the document is owned by a designated acceptable entity; and determining that the licensing information attribute indicates the document is licensed by a designated acceptable entity.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein determining that the document is printable further comprises: determining that the number of prints allowed is greater than zero.
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising, subsequent to printing the document, reducing the number of prints allowed by one.
17. The method of claim 12, further comprising: subsequent to determining that the document is printable based on the attributes, determining that a user associated with sending the document for printing is authorized to print.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein authorized users are indicated by one or more additional attributes associated with the document.
Charles Osgood introduced the stories for May 15, 2016. The news headlines started with the bus crash near Laredo, Texas.
Osgood introduced the cover story by Mark Strassman on gender/bathroom issues. North Carolina public bathrooms. Match the gender on their birth certificate. Obama: the laws that they passed there are wrong. How to balance privacy and equality. McGrory sued the federal government. A court rather than a federal agency should tell the state what the law requires. 34 states have proposed bathroom bills. Free exercise of religion law passed under Clinton in 1993. . Marcie Hamilton of UPenn Law on RIFRA. Arlene's Flowers in Richland, Washington. Ingersoll asked for flowers for gay wedding. Alliance Defending Freedom. Are there rights to discriminate? Joaquin Cartena in North Carolina.
Milepost. Money left behind at airport security totaled more then $765K last year.
Postcard from Morocco by Jonathan Vigliotti Elixir. 80 miles west of Mrracksh is Essaouira. Argan oil. Goats in trees. Goats eat nuts; nuts have to be collected by hand. 40 hours of work to make one liter of oil. Liquid gold. One liter of oil sells for $300.
Fred Newman interviewed by Jane Pauley. Dolphins doing the Gettysburg Address. Lives in Connecticut. Grew up in LaGrange, GA in the 1950s. Doug from the 1990s. Grog swallowing a wedding band. Practical Magic.
CBS noted the deaths of William Schallert, Mark Lane, Susanah Jones.
Lee Cowan on Dylan Rizzo in just keep goin'. At age 19, Dylan hit black ice and ran into a telephone pole. Taken to Mass. Gen. Hospital. Was in vegetative state. Spaulding Rehabilitatve Hospital: issue of too quick judgment on vegetative statee. Lynnfield.
Suggestion that 15% in vegetative state may recover.
Steve Hartman in Daytona Beach. Girly-girl 101.
Rita Braver on Rachel Maddow. Lead in drinking water. TRMS special report. Her goal: to make you really listen. Story telling is fun for me. First openly gay American to host a national news show. Maddow graduated from Stanford. Lives in Manhattan apartment. By 2005, hosted show on Air America. Leads staff meeting like a general planning a battle. Top rated show on MSNBC. The universe giving a one finger salute.
Mo Rocca will be the MC of the National Geography Bee on May 27, 2016.
Heads Together. May 17: Ireland 100. May 18: visit your relatives day. May 19: Smokey Robinson. May 20: Ferris-Fest May 21: Obama off to Asia, including Hiroshima.
Next week on Sunday Morning. Vanderbilt cottage in Newport, RI.
The Board’s decision contains no harmful legal error, and the Board’s finding that the mark is generic is supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.
The PTO disputes Cordua’s contention that the ’321 Registration had achieved incontestable status at the time of appeal to the TTAB. We need not address this question, because even if the earlier registration were incontestable, incontestability is irrelevant to the question of genericness. Section 15(4) of the Lanham Act mandates that “no incontestable right shall be acquired in a mark which is the generic name for the goods or services or a portion thereof, for which it is registered.” 15 U.S.C. § 1065(4). “[A] registered mark may be canceled at any time on the grounds that it has become generic.” Park ’N Fly, 469 U.S. at 194.
subsequently determining whether the term “barbecue” is generic when applied to restaurant services. Indeed, the examiner aptly remarked that “a foreign equivalent of a generic English word is no more registrable than the English word itself.” J.A. 71. But the examiner, and the Board, did not rely here on the doctrine of foreign equivalents. Instead, the examiner and the Board found that “churrasco” is used in the English language to refer to grilled meat. The evidence before the Board included, inter alia, three Englishlanguage dictionaries that define “churrasco” as grilled meat. See Cordua, 2014 WL 1390504, at *3. Two of the dictionaries specify that the meat is steak or beef. Id. The dictionaries constitute evidence that “churrasco” is a generic English-language term for grilled meat, especially grilled steak. Cordua essentially concedes this point. In its brief, Cordua concedes “‘churrasco’ can be used as a noun meaning grilled steak specially prepared in the churrasco style.” Appellant’s Br. at 47. However, Cordua contends that the addition of the “S” at the end of CHURRASCOS makes the term non-generic. That is, while Cordua concedes that “churrasco” describes a grilled steak, it argues that adding an “S” changes the term’s meaning because “churrascos” is not the proper pluralization of “churrasco” in Spanish. While each trademark must always be evaluated individually, pluralization commonly does not alter the meaning of a mark. See In re Belgrade Shoe Co., 411 F.2d 1352, 1353 (CCPA 1969); Wilson v. Delaunay, 245 F.2d 877, 878 (CCPA 1957). Since “churrascos” is an English-language term, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the addition of the “S” at the end alters its meaning (beyond making the word plural).
A similar analysis applies here. Although Buchholz testified that Merck would not have sold MTHF to Weider without first resolving certain safety and liability issues, J.A. 1291–95, his post hoc testimony cannot override what was “abundantly plain from the price, quantity, and delivery terms,” Cargill, 476 F.3d at 1370, on the face of Martin’s September 9, 1998, fax. Simply put, Buchholz’s testimony—which he gave in May 2015 about events occurring nearly seventeen years before—does not supersede the contemporaneous documentary evidence. See Linear Tech., 275 F.3d at 1053 (explaining that under “general principle[s] of contract law . . . the parties’ objective, expressed intent—not their secret, subjective intent—controls whether a bargain has been struck”); Sinskey v. Pharmacia Ophthalmics, Inc., 982 F.2d 496, 498–99 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (concluding that an inventor’s affidavit regarding events occurring many years before was entitled to little weight in the on-sale bar analysis).
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2013-00517 concerning Illumina's US Patent 7,566,537 .
lower efficiency than required by Tsien’s methods.” Id.
That prior art reference is known as Loubinoux. See J.A.
of Unstable Phenols, 44 TETRAHEDRON 6055 (1988)).
groups from phenols using triphenylphosphine.
within the meaning of Tsien or Ju.
evidence from the expert declaration into the reply brief.
the claims are not invalid.
Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
finding by the Board is supported by substantial evidence.
invalidity described in IBS’s petition were not established.
relief requested in a motion must be made in the motion.
Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug.
aware when they seek to institute an IPR.
with a modification of Zavgorodny.
resolve whether the reply brief complied with 37 C.F.R.
arguments in the petition unpersuasive. Id. at *10.
attributed to source. One issue: is a self-published book to be held to academic norms?
Yet Roberts, who holds a doctorate in educational research and evaluation from the University of Miami, told The Sun that he didn't “know there were academic norms.” He seemed to suggest his book should be held to a different standard because he was just compiling research and his experiences, but didn't intend for the book to be used in a scholarly way.
Part of the problem was that the book was self-published. An editor would have caught the sourcing issues, as School Board Chairwoman Eileen Roy suggested to The Sun.
There are many examples, already documented on IPBiz, wherein editors did NOT catch plagiarism, but readers did.
A diligent editor, checking for copying, and analyzing the situation, might be helpful, but there is little time.
And in the academic world, the thesis committee of Glenn Poshard did not catch his plagiarism. Same for the Army War College incident.
Charles Osgood introduced the stories for Mothers Day, May 8, 2016. The cover story was "never say never" by Serena Altschul on mothers over 40 years of age. John Blackstone on Keith Urban. Lee Cowan on Allison Jenney. Rita Braver on Bei Bei the panda.
Mo Rocca on George Hodgeman of Bettyville. Conor Knighton on the Petrified Forest.
News for May 8. The fire at Ft. McMurray in Alberta, Canada. Sadiq Khan, mayor of London.
The cover story --Never say never-- began with a clip of Ayala Donchin of Evelyn's Kitchen, a mother at 45. [The Evelyn's Kitchen website mentions the appearance on CBS Sunday Morning, an interesting cross-branding.] There was mention of 8443 mothers who were 45 or more years old. There were interviews with Susan Newman, and Joanne Stone of Mt. Sinai, and Susan Willis.
The almanac was May 8, 1987, when Gary Hart dropped out of the presidential race. The picture with Donna Rice and Hart inviting reporters to "follow me around," which they did.
Mo Rocca did the piece on George Hodgeman who went back to Paris, Missouri to care for his mother Betty, and later wrote a book Bettyville. Her favorite book was the Secret Confessions of Ava Gardner.
There was a presentation of an animated feature by Jacob Frey. Therein a boy receives a puppy that is missing part of a leg. At the end, one sees the boy is also missing part of a leg.
Steve Hartman in Leesburg, VA.
Lee Cowan noted Allison Jenney was discovered by Paul Newman, both of whom went to Kenyon College.
Conor Knighton's piece on the Petrified Forest was unusual, in focusing on people who took pieces of petrified wood, but later returned them. the Conscience pile.
There was an opinion piece by Susan Wojcicki of Google advocating paid maternity leave. In the early days of Google, operations were out of Wojcicki's garage. Susan has done an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on paid maternity leave.
The moment of nature was mustangs at Pine Nut Mountains in Nevada.
Google Inc. and Honeywell today [May 5, 2016] announced that they have reached a long-term patent cross-license agreement reflecting the respective strength of the companies' patent portfolios. Google and Honeywell believe that this patent accord promotes product innovation and consumer choice in the market for smart home products. The agreement fully resolves pending patent litigation between Honeywell and Nest Labs. Terms of the agreement are otherwise confidential.
Of "cinco de mayo" and patents, on May 5,1809, Mary Kies became the first woman to receive a U.S. patent, for a weaving technique.
But if you want to see Kies’ patent in person, you’re out of luck: It was destroyed in a huge fire that swept through the Patent Office in 1836, decimating approximately 10,000 patents and thousands of documents, drawings and pending patents. Kies’ story ends sadly, too; fashions changed and she died penniless, buried in a pauper’s grave in Brooklyn, New York.
**The "cinco de mayo" holiday celebrates the victory of the Mexican army over the French at the Battle of Puebla on May 5, 1862. The French would later prevail and install Maximilian, who lasted until Queretaro in 1867.
There is a connection to the American Civil War. On May 17, 1865, about three years after "cinco de mayo", General Grant ordered General Sheridan, with 50,000 men, to Texas, manifestly to deal with Kirby-Smith but sub rosa to deal with the French and Maximilian. This unit was known as the Military Division of the Southwest. Additionally, Sheridan was to keep Confederates from crossing the border, from the U.S. into Mexico!
The Military Division of the Southwest (after June 27 the Division of the Gulf), commanded by Maj. Gen. Phillip H. Sheridan, occupied Texas between June and August. Consisting of the IV Corps, XIII Corps, the African-American XXV Corps, and two 4,000-man cavalry divisions commanded by Brig-Gen. Wesley Merritt and Maj-Gen. George A. Custer, it aggregated a 50,000-man force on the Gulf Coast and along the Rio Grande to pressure the French intervention in Mexico and garrison the Reconstruction Department of Texas.
Of course, Craig Wright already said goodbye on Monday, telling the BBC his discussion would be the one and only television interview he would do. "I don't think I should have to be out there," he told the BBC. "There's nothing owed to the world... Why do I have to take credit for it? Why do I?"
"I want to work," he continued. "I don't work and invent and write papers and code by coming in front of TVs. I don't want money, I don't want fame, I don't want adoration, I just want to be left alone."
Real proof that a person or group of people is Satoshi Nakamoto, the moniker of the creator of Bitcoin, could be had within minutes. Moving around early bitcoin or creating a new signature with Satoshi's encryption keys would be enough.
Barring that, it looks like Wright will only be known as the first "cryptographically proven con artist," as security researcher Dan Kaminsky put it.
As we know, Thomas Edison was quite happy to take credit and be in the limelight.
device to execute an instruction. See Appellant’s Br. at 22.
control instructions for the machine.”).
appeared at the 53 minute mark. Character Gibbs said "Honor to serve ma'am".
The underlying issue was the lack of bar reciprocity between California and West Virginia.
Sadly, one of the malefactors in the story was a police officer in Harpers Ferry, WVa.
Texts that appeared in the episode were "We are on the same side." and #LivingRocks.
Washington Post not telling full story on Cuozzo/IPR?
The problem: Congress never told the agency [USPTO] how it was supposed to review contested patents, so the Patent Office decided to use the same broad standards that it has always used to review applications, not the textual standards of the federal courts. This stacked the patent review process against patent-holders, the opposite of what would happen in a court trial. Over the past few years, inter partes review has canceled hundreds of patents, shooting down more than 80 percent of the existing patents subject to review in cases that weren’t settled.
Critics of inter partes review — mostly pharmaceutical and software start-up companies that rely heavily on their intellectual property to do business — have taken to calling the board governing the review the “Patent Death Squad.” They argue that the new system has upended intellectual property rights and stymied innovation in the United States.
Their opponents — generally bigger tech companies like Google and Apple (the common targets of patent litigation) — defend the Patent Office. For them, the new review process is doing what it was designed to do: weeding out bogus patent claims and offering a more efficient alternative years-long court battles.
The Supreme Court is now pitted between these two sets of industries and must decide what standards inter partes review should use. Should it act as an extension of the Patent Office’s application process, striking down most of the patents with a tough standard? Or should it act as a fast-track replacement for the court system, with a lower standard?
The Washington Post piece by Robert Gebelhoff did NOT get into the failure of applicants to obtain amendments in IPR. As pointed out by Judge Newman, amending claims is a key part of patent prosecution, and the absence of amendments makes IPR very UNLIKE conventional application review.
Plagiarism incident at the Naval War College; result different from the Walsh affair at Army War College?
than the Walsh incident at the Army War College.
Nvidia Corp. and Samsung Electronics Co. agreed to settle competing patent lawsuits between the two companies, the companies said Monday.
In the fall of 2014, Nvidia and Samsung filed lawsuits against each other alleging patent infringement and other misconduct.
Nvidia filed suit against Samsung over the use of infringing patents that cover graphics chips. In its own complaint, Samsung alleged that Nvidia infringed upon six patents while falsely advertising that one of its processors was the world’s fastest mobile processor, according to Nvidia’s regulatory filing at the time.
TIME found Princeton had 15.5 patents per 10,000 people.
In an initial determination on April 27, 2016, the ITC in 337-TA-963 found that claims of Jawbone's US 8,961,413 and 8,073,707 were invalid under 35 USC 101.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 Art. 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 § 1065
 v. 
 v. 
 v.