Tuesday, September 30, 2014

EMD MILLIPORE CORPOR ATION v. ALLPURE TECHNOLOGIES on doctrine of equivalents



As to the doctrine of equivalents:


Even without literal infringe-
ment of a certain claim limitation,
a patentee may estab-
lish infringement under the doctrine of
equivalents if an element of the
accused device “performs substantially the
same function in substantially the same way to obtain the
same result as the claim limitation.”
AquaTex Indus., Inc. v. Techniche Solutions
, 419 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir.2005) (citation omitted)
(quotation marks omitted).



As to ambiguity in the file history:


And to the extent this statement is ambiguous, we note that the Supreme Court
has stated “[w]here no explanation is established . . . the
court should presume that the patent applicant had a
substantial reason related to patentability for including
the limiting element added by amendment.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 33.


The district court should have proceeded under the
presumption that prosecution history estoppel applies.
Millipore then had the burden to rebut the presumption
through one of the three enumerated exceptions, but
Millipore chose not to present any argument on this issue
to the district court.
See Oral Arg. 24:06 - 24:20 ,
available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-
recordings/14-1140/all (“Q:
You never argued in the alternative that
if in fact there was a conclusion by the trial court that the
amendment was narrowing or limiting, that you could
rebut the presumption that would arise under Festo?
A:That is correct, your honor . . . .”)



link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1140.Opinion.9-25-2014.1.PDF

Tobacco for biofuel?


On September 25, 2014, within a post from the California Academy of Sciences titled The Search for More Sustainable Biofuels , there was text


Here’s an interesting idea from scientists at UC Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: tobacco to fuel. According to KQED Quest, by adding algae and cyanobacteria to tobacco, the researchers can create a very efficient and cost-effective biofuel. “‘All the things that make tobacco bad are really good for fuels,’ said Bill Shelander [of LBNL],” according to the post. But even though it won’t compete with food crops, there are still issues with this potential biofuel, including heavy pesticide use.



On September 30, 2014, US patent 8,847,010 issued. Titled Engineered tobacco biomass with increased oil production and assigned to Biotechnology Foundation, Inc. and Thomas Jefferson University , its abstract:


The present invention relates to a genetically modified plant having an increased amount of oil in its green biomass as compared to the oil in the green biomass of its non-genetically modified counterpart. The plants may be used for producing bio-fuels such as biodiesel fuel.



AND claim 3:


A process for making a biofuel, comprising (a) genetically modifying a tobacco plant so that is has an increased amount of oil in its green biomass as compared to the green biomass of its non-genetically modified counterpart, and wherein said genetically modified tobacco plant has increased expression of: (1) at least one first gene, wherein said first gene encodes an AtDGAT1 polypeptide and wherein said first gene is operably linked to a first promoter which is CaMV 35S; and (2) at least one second gene, wherein said second gene encodes an Arabidopsis LEC2 transcription factor, and wherein said second gene is operably linked to a second promoter wherein said second promoter is an ethanol inducible promoter; (b) extracting oil from at least the green biomass of the tobacco plant; and (c) subjecting the extracted oil to a transesterification process to produce said biofuel.

Crowdsourcing and growing plants

IPBiz has written about crowdsourcing previously (e.g., Downside of crowdsourcing? ).

Note a US patent which issued on Sept. 30, 2014 titled Programmable lighting with multi-day variations of wavelength and intensity, optimized by crowdsourcing using an online social community network .

The abstract of US 8,847,514 :

A programmable luminaire has arrays of LED's producing different wavelengths of light. A light map specifies how wavelengths of light reaching a plant or other organism are changed throughout a virtual day and over different growth phases of a plant's life. A host interface has a GUI light-map editor allowing a user to edit individual wavelengths in a light map that can be uploaded and shared with other users on a crowdsourcing web site. A large on-line community optimizes the light maps for a specific species of plants or animals. The wisdom of crowds converges until the best wavelengths, intensity and duration are arrived at through ranking, resulting in maximum desired output. Light maps are voted on by users and ranked based on votes, links to other light maps, and yield results. The LED's may be dimmed at intervals during the day for shading and sun fleck.





See also the IPBiz post:

More on Lemley and Intellectual Ventures

Sunday, September 28, 2014

"The Good Wife" on September 28, 2014

One of the story lines was an asserted anti-competition agreement between the Chum Hum client and some competitors.
Keep salaries low and don't hire competitors' employees.

See discussion of the episode titled Trust Issues

And from a different post


Yes, I noticed the ethics violation WRT the Chum-Hum advance fees. Feels like Alicia (i.e. the show) simply made an error by stating that an advance fee would be the source of the bail funds in an official meeting, duly noted in the meeting minutes.

CBS Sunday Morning on Sept. 28, 2014

The cover story was on Sunday night tv, done by Tracy Smith. Second, on Fleetwood Mac. Third, Lee Cowan on drag racing and Dan Force. Fourth, Bill Geist on "look who's talking," on a ventriloquist convention. Michelle Miller, David Edelstein, Steve Hartman.
Headlines: Policeman shot in Ferguson, MO. Clooney wedding.

Tracy Smith on popular tv Sunday at 9am, including the Good Wife. What to watch now and what to record. Mad Men is the most recorded tv. Sunday is the most popular tv night of the week. 122 million viewers. Alfred Hitchcock premiered on a Sunday night in 1955. Bonanza and 60 Minutes were on Sunday. In the 1970s and 1980s, Sunday Night was "big event," including Gone with the Wind in 1976. In 1999, the Sopranos of HBO. 10 million viewers watched the first season. Also, Sex and the City. Mad Men started on Thursday but switched to Sunday. Three years ago, Good Wife went from Tuesday to Sunday. An audience for quality television. Collectively, Sunday programs are for watching a show together. Communion. Breaking Bad had the most tweets. YouTube videos of people watching Game of Thrones.

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Proterro and Bunge do deal on biofuels


From a press release in BusinessWire about a deal between (Proterro (of New Jersey) and Bunge (of Brazil):



Under a joint development agreement, a pilot plant is being commissioned at Bunge’s Moema Fazenda sugarcane mill, where two of Proterro’s photobioreactors have been installed to cultivate Proterro’s cyanobacteria for production of fermentable sugars for ethanol production.

The Bunge pilot plant will replicate the operations of Proterro’s U.S. pilot plant in Orlando, Florida, where four photobioreactors are currently deployed.

“Testing performed at this site in Brazil is particularly valuable to our development and progress, as it represents a climate, geography and CO2 source that are representative of our anticipated commercial production plant,” said Proterro CEO Kef Kasdin.

“Since our sugar-production technology is complementary to sugar-mill operations, success could result in an option for low-cost expansion of ethanol production in Brazil, while helping to meet environmental challenges and promote sustainable development of biofuel production,” she continued.

Proterro’s photobioreactor, cyanobacteria and its entire sugar-making process have been granted patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.


link: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20140924005207/en/Proterro-Bunge-Conduct-Pilot-Study-Brazil-Proterro%E2%80%99s#.VCchyCU48Yw

New Jersey based author Isabella Tanikumi sues Disney for copyright infringement over "Frozen"

Isabella Tanikumi asserts the film "Frozen" infringes on the copyright of Tanikumi's "Living My Truth" and "Yearning Of The Heart."

CBS News reports:


Another [count in the complaint] says both the books and the film center around two sisters with opposite colored hair, each with their own horse. She goes on, saying in both cases, the older sister accidentally hurts the younger sister, and the younger sister loses her memory of the incident.

In the book, Tanikumi says the sisters have male romantic interests named Hans and Kristoff. In "Frozen," the sisters pair with Hans and Christoff. She also cites "hands to the sky with sprinkles," saying her book cover and the film's DVD cover are alike.



The complaint is filed in D. N.J.

http://www.eonline.com/news/582457/disney-hit-with-250-million-lawsuit-from-woman-who-says-frozen-is-based-on-her-life-story

Validity of Blue Origin Patent 8,678,321 questioned

In a post titled SpaceX Bringing the Right Stuff to Patent Slog with Blue Origin, Expert Says , there is further discussion of the dispute between SpaceX and Blue Origin going on at PTAB. See the earlier post on IPBiz: Blue Origin and SpaceX fighting at PTAB over Blue Origin's US 8,678,321

The topic of inequitable conduct arose in the SpaceNews post by Dan Leone:



Still unsettled is the question of whether the inventors listed on Blue Origin’s patent application, which include Amazon.com and Blue Origin founder Jeff Bezos, knew about any of the documents referenced in SpaceX’s filing prior to seeking a patent in 2009.

“The inventor doesn’t have a responsibility to go out and look for prior art, but if he does find prior art, he has to tell the patent office,” [Andrew] Rush said. “So If Jeff Bezos was aware of this paper SpaceX is citing, he would have had a responsibility to give a copy of that paper to the patent office because it is relevant to his technology. He would have had to do that at the time he applied for the patent.”

Neither SpaceX spokesman John Taylor nor Blue Origin spokeswoman Brooke Crawford would comment for this story. Scott Talbot, a Reston, Virginia-based attorney for Cooley LLP, the firm that prepared SpaceX’s request for an inter partes review, also declined to comment.



As a first point, the patent board (PTAB) does not consider inequitable conduct in an inter partes review (IPR). Thus, the "unsettled question" mentioned in the SpaceNews post is irrelevant to the ongoing proceeding. Second, inequitable conduct, post-Therasense, is difficult to establish. IPBiz notes that a good discussion of "how" inequitable conduct is applied, post-Therasense, is found in the dissent by Judge Newman in AMERICAN CALCAR, INC. , ironically a case wherein inequitable conduct was found in a 2-1 vote at the CAFC. To establish inequitable conduct, there is a requirement of materiality of the reference, intent to deceive, and a test of whether the patent issued "but for" the omission of the reference. The American Calcar case presents an inversion of the present fact pattern in Blue Origin in the sense the key reference at issue in American Calcar was before the Board in a re-exam and patentability was found, BUT two CAFC judges found inequitable conduct anyway. Judge Newman wrote of this in her dissent, questioning "how" the but-for standard could have been met:


We need not speculate about whether the PTO would
have granted the Calcar patents “but-for” the information
in the Owner’s Manual and the photographs, for the
PTO’s reexamination of the ’497 patent provides the
answer: the PTO confirmed patentability. Reexamination
was conducted in full view of not only the targeted information,
but also Honda’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
The purpose of reexamination is to provide PTO
expertise in determining patentability. This procedure
was followed, and established that the challenged information
was not “material” to patentability as determined
by the PTO. That ruling was not appealed. My colleagues’
contrary holding is not available.






A New Jersey connection is mentioned in the SpaceNews post: A late December launch — for Fort Lee, New Jersey-based satellite operator Orbcomm — is another candidate for a barge landing, SpaceX said following its last launch for Orbcomm in July.

Friday, September 26, 2014

Strong dissent by Judge Newman in AMERICAN CALCAR, INC. over finding of inequitable conduct

From within AMERICAN CALCAR, INC. v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. :


Partial disclosure of material information about the prior art to the PTO cannot absolve a patentee of intent if the disclosure is intentionally selective. Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Sam- sung Elecs. Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (finding intent where the patentee disclosed a complete reference in Japanese but did not provide translations of that part which was material to patentability); Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc., No. 13-1674, 2014 WL 3973498, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2014) (finding intent on the basis of an inventor misrepresenting material information about disclosed prior art).



As to advisory verdicts:


As we have held, inequitable conduct is “inequitable in nature,” and thus the “district court was in no way bound by the jury’s finding of no inequitable conduct in this case.” Calcar II, 651 F.3d at 1334. In any event, after the jury submitted its adviso- ry verdict, the district court requested thousands of pages of testimony from Calcar’s previous litigation. Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing, Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 06-cv-2433 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2008), ECF No. 566. This testimony included assertions by Mr. Obradovich that contradicted those made in these proceedings, which led the district court to its determina- tion that Mr. Obradovich lacked credibility. This was evidence that the jury did not see. Therefore, we see no reason why the jury’s advisory verdict suggests a reason- able alternative to the district court’s inference.



By a 2 to 1 vote:


For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment that the ’497, ’465, and ’795 patents were obtained through inequitable conduct and are thus unenforceable.


In dissent, Judge Newman observed


The only issue is whether Mr. Obradovich committed inequitable conduct by not providing the PTO, when the parent patent application was filed, with the Acura Owner’s Manual and the photographs that the Calcar employees took of the Acura display. These materials were provided to the PTO on reexamination of the ’497 patent, and patentability was confirmed by the PTO in light of that additional information.

The factual premises of “inequitable conduct” were not established, for there was not “but-for” materiality and no evidence of intent to deceive. The panel majority distorts the Therasense standards, ignores the PTO reexamination, casts the jury aside, and generally disre- gards the safeguards that this court adopted en banc. I respectfully dissent, for the criteria of inequitable conduct are plainly not met.



AND


Nonetheless, my colleagues rule that the patents are unenforceable based on the initial failure to send the Owner’s Manual and photographs to the PTO. The ineq- uitable conduct with which Mr. Obradovich is charged is that he “did not tell Mr. Yip [his patent attorney] about his experience with the 96RL, nor did he provide Mr. Yip with the Owner’s Manual or the photos of the navigation system display screens.” Dist. Ct. Op. at 11. However, the PTO established, on reexamination of the ’497 patent, that the purportedly withheld information was not material to patentability. In accordance with Therasense this ended the inequitable conduct inquiry, for the PTO sus- tained patentability in view of this information.



As to inferences:


My colleagues “infer” clear and convincing evidence of deceptive intent from Mr. Obradovich’s initial failure to send his patent attorney the Owner’s Manual and the photographs of the Acura display. They postulate that a savvy inventor and businessman such as Mr. Obradovich would have known the information was material to pa- tentability and would therefore withhold it in order to deceive the PTO. However, a more likely inference is that a savvy inventor and businessman would know that a patent obtained through concealment of a material refer- ence is not a reliable commercial asset.

The US Navy's commercial scale biofuels programs

The CleanTechnica post US Navy Biofuel Wins Death Match, Where’s The Outrage? includes text


The new initiative demonstrates how quickly the biofuel industry could move away from farmlands and embrace a broader variety of non-food feedstocks that don’t compete with agriculture for growing space. These are not pilot projects, they are full commercial-scale operations.

In partnership with Agriculture and Energy, the Navy is investing in three new contracts for “drop-in” biofuels, though not quite at 100 percent drop-in, though. The performance of a 50-50 blend was verified in action during the 2012 RIMPAC exercises, and the Navy is apparently sticking with that for now.

The RIMPAC (that stands for Rim of the Pacific) exercise included biofuel for Navy aircraft as well as ships, btw.

We’re particularly interested in the Emerald Biofuels project, because when the Navy first announced that it would use biofuel from chicken fat and other waste fats that seemed pretty far-fetched, but apparently it’s going to happen.

Emerald’s contract will result in the construction of an 82 million gallon-per-year refinery using waste fat feedstock. It will be located on the Gulf Coast.

The other two projects are more modestly scaled. One, by Fulcrum BioEnergy, involves a 10 million gallon refinery in Nevada. The feedstock will be municipal solid waste.

The other one is a 12 million gallon-per-year operation by Red Rock Biofuels, which will use waste biomass from forestry operations. That one is located up in Oregon.

Hmmm…Gulf Coast…Nevada…Oregon…If you step back and take a meta-view, you can see how the Navy biofuel program is a win-win.





****

Of the grant to Red Rock Biofuels, oilbarrel had reported:


Shares in gas-to-liquids technology company Velocys plc nudged new highs on Monday as the AIM-quoted company revealed its customer Red Rock Biofuels has been awarded a US$70 million grant to build a biomass-to-liquids plant in Oregon. The plant, which will convert 170,000 tons per year of forestry and sawmill waste into 1,100 bpd of ultra-clean transportation fuels, will use Velocys' Fischer-Tropsch (FT) technology.


Some of the people at Red Rock came from Pacific Ethanol.

The Denver Business Journal noted: BizWest reports the company [Red Rock] was formed in September 2011 by former employees of Pacific Ethanol Inc.


Also

Note patent infringement suit in ED Ca: GS Cleantech Corporation (owned by GreenShift) v. Pacific Ethanol, Inc., related to GreenShift’s patented corn oil extraction processes. Later, an infringement action was filed March 17, 2014 in federal court in Sacramento, California accused Pacific Ethanol Stockton of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858, entitled “Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems”

Thursday, September 25, 2014

UPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. ITC

The opinion in UPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. ITC authored by Judge Newman begins


Before the court are the appeal of respondentintervenor
uPI Semiconductor Corp. (“uPI”) and the
companion appeal of complainant-intervenors Richtek
Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (together “Richtek”)
from rulings of the International Trade Commission
in an action to enforce a Consent Order, Certain DC-DC
Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
TA-698 (75 Fed. Reg. 446). We affirm the Commission’s
ruling that uPI violated the Consent Order as to the
imports known as “formerly accused products,” and affirm
the modified penalty for that violation. We reverse the
ruling of no violation as to the “post-Consent Order”
products. The case is remanded for further proceedings in
accordance with our rulings herein.



Trade secrets were involved:


The ALJ found that the formerly accused products
contained or were produced using Richtek’s trade secrets
and that the formerly accused products alone, or incorporated
into downstream products, infringed the ’190, ’470,
and ’717 patents. The ALJ also found that the post-
Consent Order products infringed the ’470 and ’717 patents.
However, the ALJ found that the post-Consent
Order products were independently developed, and therefore
not produced using Richtek’s trade secrets, due to
“clean room” procedures uPI implemented. (...)

Richtek’s petition for review, in turn, challenged the
ALJ’s finding that the post-Consent Order products did
not embody Richtek’s trade secrets. Richtek argued that
the post-Consent Order products are substantially similar
or identical to the formerly accused products and the
asserted trade secrets, and that the post-Consent Order
products continue to be produced using Richtek’s trade
secrets. (...)

The full Commission affirmed the ALJ’s findings that
the formerly accused products were produced using or
contained Richtek’s trade secrets and that the post-
Consent Order products were produced without Richtek’s
trade secrets. (...)

Richtek appeals the Commission’s ruling that the
post-Consent Order products do not use or contain Richtek’s
trade secrets, but does not appeal the rulings as to
Consent Order violations concerning the ’190 patent,
the ’470 patent, or the ’717 patent.



Within the analysis


uPI states that, despite its agreement by Consent Order
not to knowingly aid, abet or induce importation of
products produced using or containing Richtek trade
secrets or infringing Richtek patents, this provision
cannot reach third-party importations. uPI states that
Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. International Trade Commission,
545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008), prohibits the Commission
from excluding imports of non-respondents absent
a general exclusion order. uPI states that because this
case was terminated by Consent Order, with no general
exclusion order, no penalty can be based on importations
by non-respondents, whether or not they were knowingly
aided or abetted by uPI.

CAFC reviews procedure for granting stay of district court proceedings during CBM review by USPTO

From within the decision BENEFIT FUNDING SYSTEMS vs. ADVANCE AMERICA CASH ADVANCE CENTERS :


Traditionally, we have reviewed district court decisions
on motions to stay pending U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office proceedings under the abuse of discretion
standard. VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., No.
2014-1232, 2014 WL 3360806, at *2 (Fed. Cir. July 10,
2014). The AIA, however, provides this court with the
authority to conduct more searching review of decisions to
stay pending CBM review.
Specifically, the AIA provides
that this court “shall review the district court’s decision to
ensure consistent application of established precedent,
and such review may be de novo.” AIA § 18(b)(2).



Of the issue raised by the appellants [ BENEFIT FUNDING SYSTEMS LLC,
represented by CASEY L. GRIFFITH, Klemchuk Kubasta LLP, of Dallas,
Texas ]:


Appellants’ argument on appeal rests on the single
premise that the PTAB is not authorized to conduct CBM
review based on § 101 grounds
. Consequently, according
to Appellants, the district court would not be bound by the
results of the CBM review and, as such, “the PTAB’s
review of the ’582 patent cannot simplify this case.”
Appellants’ Br. 5. Instead, in Appellants’ view, a stay will
unduly prejudice Appellants, present a clear tactical
advantage to Appellees, and increase—not decrease—the
burden of litigation.

Appellants raised essentially this same argument
with the district court, which found the argument unpersuasive.
Specifically, the district court acknowledged the
risk that “there is a definitive legal ruling that Section
101 is not a proper basis for a CBM review” and the CBM
review thus simplifies very little. Hearing Transcript at
42. Still, the district court concluded that “[such] risk is
relatively small and certainly is not big enough to cause
this first factor to disfavor a stay.” Id. at 43.



The CAFC found such reasoning to amount to an improper collateral
attack:


Such review “amounts to an improper collateral attack on the PTAB’s
decision to institute CBM review, and allowing it would create serious
practical problems,”



The bottom line:


Having rejected Appellants’ sole argument on appeal,
we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in granting the stay. Further, consistency with
established precedent was not at issue in this case and no
other compelling reason for a more searching review was
presented.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Plagiarism consequences in the real world?

An article relating to plagiarism charges against Mary Burke begins:


“I will make it my personal mission to give you an F and get you expelled from the University of Wisconsin,” stated one of my professors as he outlined his policy on plagiarism and cheating. His rationale behind this logic is that in the real world, taking someone else’s ideas as your own would not be tolerated, and it can have much more severe consequences than just a failing grade. In the real world, consequences include locking one in jail and tossing away the key.

Take the smartphone industry for example. In 2012, Apple decided to sue Samsung for patent infringement. After two years of fighting in the courts, Apple won the case, and as a result Samsung had to pay Apple $929 million to make up for their cheating. All of this goes to show that cheating is not worth it, and that there are real consequences to stealing someone’s work whether it is patent infringement or plagiarizing.



Taken from College Republicans: Burke’s plagiarized plan makes election choice simple

One recalls that Joe Biden, currently Vice-President, copied without attribution from law review articles for a paper at Syracuse Law School, did get an F but was not expelled, and went on to a lengthy career.

As to the reference to "929 million," note the text


Because of a quirk of design patent law, however, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple all of the profits associated with the products that contained these designs — no matter the import of the designs, their relative contribution to Samsung profits, or any effect on Apple. Samsung’s penalty totaled $929 million, the sum now under appeal.



from Forbes Apple v. Samsung Highlights Unfinished Work In The Patent Reformation

No word in investigation of plagiarism by Senator John Walsh

In Walsh, Army War College mum on plagiarism investigation, AP reports nothing new in investigation
of Senator John Walsh.

Which way for the Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz and FRCP 52 in patent cases?

On 19 Sept. 2014, a panel consisting of Ruben Castillo, Faith Hochberg, and Randall Rader discussed, among other things,
Teva v. Sandoz. For some background on the issue, see http://www.shb.com/newsletters/IpQ/IpQ.6.3.pdf.

Motorola also was mentioned, with discussion of the views of Judge Posner.

Responding to the demands of patent assertion entities (PAEs)

Mondaq has a post titled
United States: How Should I Respond To A Claim Of Patent Infringement?


The post includes the text:



Although ignoring such a letter and hoping the patent owner will go away is one option, it is not without risk. Usually, such an approach turns out to be nothing more than wishful thinking. - See more at: http://www.mclane.com/resources/article-detail.aspx?id=1058#utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original


HOWEVER, the 10th Annual IP Conference held by Foley & Lardner on Sept. 19, 2014 [titled "Evolution to Revolution"] included views by Matthew Miller of GroupOn which are somewhat different. Miller noted his budget does not allow negotiation based on "cost of defense." Using an analogy of a puffer fish, Miller effectively introduced the options of pay, slay, or spay.

When asked if the option of not accepting the demands of patent assertion entities was wise, Miller came up with one of the better lines of the conference, to the effect --the day I get burned there will be another guy sitting in this seat giving this talk--.

Washington Post: "The patent office’s response to the revelations of fraudulent practices has shifted dramatically."

Lisa Rein of the Washington Post quoted Michelle Lee:


On Friday [Sept. 19, 2014], she [Michelle Lee] wrote:

“Since assuming my leadership position at this agency, I have made it my personal goal to ensure that our operations serve as a model of efficiency and effectiveness,” wrote Lee, who is effectively the agency’s head in the absence of a permanent director. “I take these matters very seriously and I will continue to connect with you in the coming days and weeks and keep you informed as we review our operations and look for ways to improve.”

Sunday, September 21, 2014

CBS Sunday Morning on September 21, 2014

The cover story was done by Jan Crawford (UofC Law, 1993) on "common core" education. Jane Pauley did a piece on an 11 year old from Ferguson, Missouri.

A teaser for the Crawford story:



The Common Core is now at the core of a heated national controversy. Launched by state officials in 2009, the Core outlines what students must master at every grade level. (...)

But now some states are re-thinking their approach. Conservatives have branded the Core as the federal government "overreaching" into state affairs; Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is suing the White House over it. And in New York -- one of the bluest of states -- an estimated 60,000 students have now opted out of Common Core testing.



Of the Pauley piece on Marquis Govan:


a boy approached the microphone at a meeting of the St. Louis County Council:

"I would just like to say that the people of Ferguson, I believe, don't need tear gas thrown at them. I believe they need jobs."

Meet 11-year-old Marquis Govan.

"Where are all the African-American police officers in our community?"

In two minutes' time Govan tackled Ferguson's problems with unemployment, housing, and diversity:

"You're paying attention to the wrong things. You're paying attention to the looting and things like that, when the real issues aren't being solved. There's a reason why those people are out there."



Seth Doane did an interesting story about interrogation of German prisoners (including scientists) during World War II:


During WWII, Army Intelligence interrogated high-ranking prisoners-of-war at a secret installation in Alexandria, Va., dubbed "P.O. Box 1142." Seth Doane reports on this little-known piece of history that took place just a few miles from the nation's capital.



Steve Hartman on Jack Mook, of Pittsburgh.

The scheduled "opinion piece"

-->
OPINION: Time to end five o'clock shadow

Humorist Louis Zemima says facial stubble doesn't suit today's man, even when he's wearing a tuxedo

<--

was replaced by a piece by Nancy Giles on the current problems at the NFL.

The moment of nature was from the LBJ ranch in Texas.