Saturday, July 23, 2016

The Washington Post resurrects the patent quality debate

The Washington Post is hitting on a lack of quality at the USPTO:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is so focused on rewarding its employees for the number of applications they review that the quality of patents they give out is in jeopardy, according to the Government Accountability Office.

“The strength of the U.S. system relies on the granting of strong patents, ones that are truly novel and non-obvious inventions, those that are true innovations and not the product of legal gamesmanship,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who requested the audit, said in a statement.

The committee has called patent office Director Michelle Lee to testify in September. Goodlatte called the hearing “an important opportunity for the Judiciary Committee to conduct the appropriate oversight to ensure that our intellectual property laws are being implemented fairly and in line with Congressional intent.”


Friday, July 22, 2016

Apple fares poorly at CAFC in Unwired Planet case

Part of ND Cal's claim construction was found to be in error by the CAFC,
which determination was adverse to Apple:

We conclude that the district court erred in its construction
of “voice input.” The claims require a voice
input, not a voice channel. By its plain language, the
term “voice input” does not dictate the manner in which
voice is to be transmitted from a mobile device to a server,
and Apple does not argue otherwise. It is undisputed that
a voice input signal could be transmitted over either a
voice channel or a data channel or, as Apple itself does,
over TCP/IP. Apple does not argue that the patentee
acted as his own lexicographer and defined “voice input”
different from its plain and ordinary meaning. Thus, the
district court’s construction, adopted at Apple’s urging,
can be justified if there exists a clear and unmistakable
disclaimer in the specification or the prosecution history.
Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1367. We see no such disclaimer in
the specification.

As a procedural matter, note

To justify the district court’s construction, Apple argues
that the only embodiments disclosed in the ’446
patent use a voice channel. However, we have repeatedly
held that it is “not enough that the only embodiments, or
all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation” to
limit claims beyond their plain meaning. Thorner, 669
F.3d at 1366; GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,
750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Apple also attempts
to justify the district court’s construction by arguing that
the claims would be invalid as anticipated if the “voice
input” were construed to have its plain meaning. We
decline to address whether the asserted claims are anticipated
because that issue is not before us and was not fully
briefed. See generally Radio Sys. Corp. v. Lalor, 709 F.3d
1124, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[I]nvalidity cannot be an
alternative ground for affirming a judgment of noninfringement
absent a cross-appeal.”).

As to -- U.S. PATENT NO. 6,647,260 --

We agree with Unwired that the district court erred
in granting summary judgment of non-infringement. The
district court correctly noted that “the user information”
in claim 1 refers to the same “user information” recited
earlier in the claim as part of the “receiving user information
required to establish a user account” step. However,
in granting summary judgment of non-infringement,
the district court essentially required the claimed “user
information” to be in a particular format. We do not agree
with such a reading of the term. While “user information”
refers to some information, knowledge, or data on a user,
the plain meaning of the term does not require that
information to be in any specific format or form. For
example, the English word “apple” and the Russian word
for “apple” contain the same information to the extent
that they both refer to the round fruit of a tree of the rose
family, despite their differences in form. We think a
reasonable jury could find that a hashed password in the
X-token contains the same information as in the user’s
unmodified password, albeit in a different form.
Apple argues the hashed password cannot contain the
same substantive content as the password because Unwired’s
expert admitted that it is impossible to determine
from the hashed password what the password is. It
argues the hashed password is not simply the password in
a different form, citing its expert’s report for support. J.A.
10251 (“[A] hash is designed so that the original input
into the hash function cannot be derived from the hash
value, and thus can be used for validation only.”).
We are not convinced by Apple’s argument. We do not
think the non-reversibility of a hash function—i.e., that a
hashed password cannot be decrypted into the password—
is determinative of the relevant inquiry. Whether the
hashed password in Apple’s X-token contains the same
“user information” as in a user’s password is a fact question
properly left to the jury. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker
Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claims do
not dictate a particular form in which “user information”
exists, and we decline to adopt interchangeability or
reversibility as the essential characteristic in determining
whether multiple forms of expression have the same
underlying information

Washington Post inadvertently raises some (other) plagiarism issues

In a post titled After Melania Trump’s plagiarism, the press hunts for more stolen speeches, Callum Borchers
wrote, as to speeches by Donald Trump Jr. and Mike Pence:

But as The Fix's Philip Bump explained Wednesday, the controversy quickly died when it turned out that Buckley helped write Donald Trump Jr.'s speech. So he was really just stealing from himself.

Here at The Fix, we also scrubbed Mike Pence's Wednesday-night address and found phrases borrowed from Ronald Reagan, the Bible and Bill Clinton, of all people. But as Aaron Blake noted, these were more like hat-tips to familiar texts than attempts by Pence to pass off someone else's ideas as his own (though not all news outlets were so charitable in their assessments).

Plagiarism is copying without attribution to the originator of that which is copied. Trump Jr. gave a speech written by a speech writer without attributing the writer during the speech. Certainly a common practice. The writer in turn self-plagiarized. Both are examples of plagiarism that are accepted by many as "not a bad act." Both are plagiarism.

As to -- hat-tips to familiar texts --, Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" speech is right out of the Bible. Most in that 1858 audience probably knew this. One does not need to attribute an author that is already known , at least in speeches.
Joe Biden's Syracuse Law plagiarism shows that this rule does not always hold. Biden's fellow student (and professor) knew "where" the copied text came from. But on a paper, for a grade, copying without attribution is problematic, even when the readers know your source. That amounts to trying to take credit for the work of others. Not good on an assignment, but all right when using a speechwriter?

Thursday, July 21, 2016

US '627 [Method and apparatus for creating timewise display of widely variable naturalistic scenery on an amusement device ] may get some action

The first claim of US Patent 9,317,627 to Johan Gielis states:

A method for creating timewise display of widely variable naturalistic scenery, including simulated plants, simulated other organisms or simulated landscapes, on an amusement device with minimized data storage and processing requirements, the method comprising: creating with computer hardware a first shape that corresponds to at least a portion of a simulated natural form, including at least a portion of a simulated plant, a simulated other organism or a simulated landscape, based on a first set of parameter values in data storage input by said computer hardware into a representation of a formula that establishes shape position with respect to angle or orientation in a rotational coordinate system based on a vast number of possible parameter sets as: shape position corresponds to a fraction in which the denominator of said fraction has a variable root parameter (n.sub.1) set as the root of an expression including the absolute values of two terms, with the absolute value of a first term of said two terms being to an exponent based on a variable first exponent parameter (n.sub.2) and the absolute value of a second term of said two terms being to an exponent based on a variable second exponent parameter (n.sub.3), wherein said first term includes an axis sub term, having a first axis parameter (1/a or A), that is multiplied by a cosine sub term including the cosine of a value including a first rotational symmetry parameter (m.sub.1) times an angle or orientation, and wherein said second term includes an axis sub term, having a second axis parameter (1/b or B), that is multiplied by a sine sub term including the sine of a value including a second rotational symmetry parameter (m.sub.2) times an angle or orientation; wherein (i) said first and second axis parameters, said root parameter (n.sub.1), said first and second exponent parameters (n.sub.2, n.sub.3) and said first and second rotational symmetry parameters (m.sub.1, m.sub.2) are finite real numbers, (ii) said root parameter (n.sub.1) and said first and second axis parameters are not equal to zero, and (iii) said first and second axis parameters, said root parameter (n.sub.1), said first and second exponent parameters (n.sub.2, n.sub.3) and said first and second rotational symmetry parameters (m.sub.1, m.sub.2) are not equal to 1; generating the naturalistic scenery by displaying on a monitor of the amusement device a naturalistic scene based on said first shape; creating with said computer hardware additional shapes including said computer hardware inputting modified parameter values into said representation of said formula; generating a timewise display of naturalistic scenery by displaying with said monitor additional naturalistic scenes based on said additional shapes, said additional naturalistic scenes being displayed on said monitor separated timewise from said naturalistic scene for said timewise display of naturalistic scenery; whereby allowing timewise display of widely variable naturalistic scenery, including simulated organisms, simulated plants or simulated landscapes, with minimized data storage and processing requirements due to minimized storage requirements for said parameter values and processing with said representation of said formula.

The priority chain is

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/582,528, filed on Oct. 20, 2009, entitled Method and Apparatus for Synthesizing and Analyzing Patterns Utilizing Novel "Super-Formula" Operator of J. Gielis, which is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/566,986, filed on May 9, 2000, entitled Method and Apparatus for Synthesizing and Analyzing Patterns Utilizing Novel "Super-Formula" Operator of J Gielis, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/133,279, filed on May 10, 1999, the entire disclosures of which applications are all incorporated herein by reference as though recited herein in fUll.

Ars Technica notes:

Despite the noise being made by Genicap, there's some question as to whether the company's patent actually applies to No Man's Sky. The European Patent Convention says directly that "discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods" are not directly patentable, and US patent law also excepts "disembodied mathematical algorithms and formula" from patentability.

But that doesn't mean Genicap's patent is invalid. "Copyrighting a mathematical formula is actually a difficult feat," Law of the Game blogger and attorney Mark Methenitis tells Ars. "You can, however, patent the practical application of a mathematical formula... So while you can't make the formula itself a claim, you can make using the formula to achieve specific outcomes 'claims' in the patent. Looking over the patent here, it does seem like that's [what Genicap did]."

In other words, Hello Games can't get in trouble for simply using the basic superformula. But it could run into legal trouble for using the formula in a specific way that's outlined in the patent. And while Genicap's patent calls out the formula's potential use in "graphics programs (e.g., 2D, 3D, etc.); CAD software; finite element analysis programs; wave generation programs; or other software," it doesn't specifically mention game design (procedurally generated or otherwise).


Separately, as to IPBiz

CAFC negates ND California on supplemental jurisdiction issue in AngioScore case

The summary of "what happened"

AngioScore, Inc. sued the defendant-appellants (Tri-
Reme Medical, LLC, Quattro Vascular PTE Ltd., QT
Vascular Ltd., and Eitan Konstantino) for patent infringement,
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting,
and unfair competition. After separate trials on the
patent and state-law claims, the district court entered
final judgment for Defendants on the patent claim, for
AngioScore on the state-law claims, and denied Corporate
Defendants’ (TriReme Medical, LLC, Quattro Vascular
PTE Ltd., and QT Vascular Ltd.) request for attorneys’
fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Because we find that the
district court improperly exercised supplemental jurisdiction
over the state-law claims but did not err in denying
attorneys’ fees, we reverse-in-part, affirm-in-part, vacatein-
part, and remand with instructions to dismiss the
state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Of supplemental jurisdiction:

The threshold question here is whether the district
court properly exercised jurisdiction over the state-law
claims. We review de novo a district court’s exercise of
supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under 28
U.S.C. § 1367(a). Voda v. Cordis Corp., 476 F.3d 887, 892
(Fed. Cir. 2007).
This court follows the “‘fundamental precept that federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ empowered
to act only within the bounds of Article III of the United
States Constitution.” Highway Equip. Co. v. FECO, Ltd.,
469 F.3d 1027, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 374
(1978)). If diversity jurisdiction is lacking and the case
involves state-law claims that are not independently
subject to federal jurisdiction, a district court may exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims
only if they “are so related to claims in the action within
such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same
case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); see also Highway
Equip. Co., 469 F.3d at 1038. “For this relatedness requirement
to be satisfied, ‘[t]he state and federal claims
must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’
such that they would ordinarily be expected to be tried in
one proceeding.” Highway Equip. Co., 469 F.3d at 1038
(quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.
715, 725 (1966)).
An “operative fact” is one “that constitutes the transaction
or event on which a claim or defense is based.”
Wisey’s #1 LLC v. Nimellis Pizzeria LLC, 952 F. Supp. 2d
184, 190 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY
670 (9th ed. 2009)). Generally, claims arise out of a
common nucleus of operative fact when they “involve the
same witnesses, presentation of the same evidence, and
determination of the same, or very similar, facts.” Palmer
v. Hosp. Auth. of Randolph Cty., 22 F.3d 1559, 1563–64
(11th Cir. 1994); see also Lyndonville Sav. Bank & Trust
Co. v. Lussier, 211 F.3d 697, 704 (2d Cir. 2000) (a sufficient
relationship will be found if “the facts underlying
the federal and state claims substantially overlap[] . . . or
where presentation of the federal claim necessarily
b[rings] the facts underlying the state claim before the
court”). However, state-law claims that “only ‘relate
generally’ to federal claims through a broader dispute and
do not share any operative facts are insufficient for supplemental
jurisdiction.” Wisey’s #1 LLC, 952 F. Supp. 2d
at 190 (quoting Chelsea Condo. Unit Owners Ass’n v. 1815
A St., Condo. Grp., LLC, 468 F. Supp. 2d 136, 141 (D.D.C.

Here, no common nucleus of operative fact exists.

The outcome:

For these reasons, we find that the district court improperly
exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the
state-law claims, but did not err in denying attorneys’
fees. Therefore, we reverse-in-part, affirm-in-part, vacate-
in-part, and remand with instructions to dismiss the
state-law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The New York Times on the Melania Trump matter

In a post Melania Trump, Plagiarism, and How Much Does It Matter? , the New York Times quoted the Washingtonian:

The Washingtonian wrote: “According to Turnitin, a plagiarism-checking website that examines 200,000 papers a day, the likelihood that a 16-word match is ‘just a coincidence’ is less than 1 in a trillion. Melania Trump’s longest match? 23 words.”

From the Washingtonian:

To help us get a handle on how similar the speeches were, Washingtonian ran excerpts through a side-by-side plagiarism checker at Small SEO Tools.


Here’s an even more shocking statistic: According to Turnitin, a plagiarism-checking website that examines 200,000 papers day, the “likelihood that a 16-word match is ‘just a coincidence’ is less than 1 in a trillion.” Melania Trump’s longest match? 23 words.


The link FROM the Washingtonian To "1 in a trillion" is to Top 15 Misconceptions About Turnitin , which includes the text
Misconception 11: Matched text is likely to be completely coincidental or common knowledge.

Reality: The likelihood that a 16-word match is "just a coincidence" is less than 1 in a trillion. Turnitin also includes the ability to exclude "small matches" if the instructor wants to exclude common phrases.

See also

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Diana Rigg Birthday on July 20

Apart from lunar landing day, July 20 is Diana Rigg's birthday. In 2014, she was quoted:

"I think women of my age are still attractive." She removes her glasses and faces me down with brown eyes that have turned strong men – and, indeed, women – to jelly. "Men of my age aren't." Why? "They've got their cojones halfway to their knees," she says, giggling. "They have the same descent as tits."


D. Delaware decision on jurisdiction vacated by CAFC in Polar Electro

The outcome:

Polar Electro Oy (“Polar”) appeals from the decision of
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware
granting Suunto Oy’s (“Suunto”) motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Polar Electro Oy v.
Suunto Oy, No. 11-1100, 2015 WL 2248439 (D. Del. May
12, 2015). Because the district court erred in determining
that Suunto lacked sufficient minimum contacts with
Delaware to support specific jurisdiction, we vacate and

Yes, Polar and Suunto are BOTH Finnish companies.

Note a footnote

The parties designated certain information in
their merits briefs as confidential, but later informed the
court that “the information in the merits briefs may be
discussed at argument and included in any opinion.”
Polar Electro Oy v. Amer Sports Winter & Outdoor, No.
15-1930, ECF No. 50 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016). Other
materials designated as confidential in the joint appendix
remain sealed. Id.

As to the law

Determining whether personal jurisdiction over an
out-of-state defendant is proper entails a two-part inquiry.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344,
1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003). First, a district court analyzes and
applies the long arm statute of the state in which it sits to
determine whether personal jurisdiction is proper under
the statute. Id. Second, the court determines whether
exercising jurisdiction over the defendant in the forum
state comports with the Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. Id. Here, because the district court’s dismissal
of Suunto is premised on its determination that
due process considerations prevented its exercise of
jurisdiction, we consider the due process inquiry first.

Yes, International Shoe is cited:

Due process requires that the defendant have sufficient
“minimum contacts” with the forum state, “such that
the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co.
v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). Personal jurisdiction
has two forms: specific and general. AFTG-TG, LLC v.
Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1360 (Fed. Cir.
2012). General jurisdiction is not at issue here.


Because McIntyre did not produce a majority opinion,
we have held that we must follow its narrowest holding,
which is what “can be distilled from Justice Breyer’s
concurrence—that the law remains the same after McIntyre.”
AFTG-TG, 689 F.3d at 1363 (citing Marks v. United
States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977)). Thus, we must follow
our existing precedent. In Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal
Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994), this
court declined to decide which of Justice O’Connor’s and
Justice Brennan’s tests should be adopted because the
outcome of that appeal would be the same under either
test. Subsequent panels have followed that approach, as
the resolution of the cases thus far has not required us to
“take a side on the Asahi divide.” AFTG-TG, 689 F.3d at
1364; see also Celgard, 792 F.3d at 1382; Commissariat a
L’Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., 395
F.3d 1315, 1322 & n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Viam Corp. v.
Iowa Export-Import Trading Co., 84 F.3d 424, 428 (Fed.
Cir. 1996).

Suunto loses

We agree with Polar that Suunto has sufficient contacts
with Delaware to sustain specific jurisdiction. The
record shows that Suunto’s actions satisfy the more
stringent tests articulated by Justice O’Connor in Asahi
and by Justice Kennedy in McIntyre, as well as the more
flexible test articulated by Justice Brennan. Specifically,
Suunto purposefully shipped at least ninety-four accused
products to Delaware retailers, fully expecting that its
products would then be sold in Delaware as a result of its
activities. It thus can be said that Suunto’s actions are
purposefully directed to Delaware, indicating an intent
and purpose to serve not only the U.S. market generally,
but also the Delaware market specifically.


We agree with Polar that the district court correctly
applied the dual jurisdiction theory in this case. It may
seem counterintuitive
that the dual jurisdiction theory
does not demand the full satisfaction of any individual
subsection of the Delaware long arm statute. But to date,
no Delaware state court has rejected that theory. Indeed,
the Delaware Supreme Court has had opportunities to
reject the theory, but has declined to do so. See Graphics
Props. Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Comput. Int’l, 70 F. Supp.
3d 654, 661 (D. Del. 2014) (collecting cases). The district
courts in Delaware have applied the dual jurisdiction
theory in several patent cases. See, e.g., Robert Bosch
LLC v. Alberee Prods., Inc., 70 F. Supp. 3d 665, 672–76
(D. Del. 2014); Graphics Props., 70 F. Supp. 3d at 659–62;
Intellectual Ventures I LLC, v. Ricoh Co., 67 F. Supp. 3d
656, 660–61 (D. Del. 2014); Belden Techs., Inc. v. LS
Corp., 829 F. Supp. 2d 260, 267–68 (D. Del. 2010); Power
Integrations, 547 F. Supp. 2d at 370–74. But see Round
Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK Comput. Inc., 967 F.
Supp. 2d 969, 975–78 (D. Del. 2013). Although the Boone
decision is not binding on this court or the district court,
we conclude that the district court did not err in applying
the dual jurisdiction theory in this case.


Tuesday, July 19, 2016

WBIP prevails over Kohler at the CAFC

Kohler lost at the CAFC:

We affirm the court’s denial of judgment as a
matter of law on all issues raised by Kohler and its willful
infringement determination, vacate the court’s denial of
WBIP’s motion for a permanent injunction, and remand
for further consideration


For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district
court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law that the
asserted claims would have been obvious and lack sufficient
written description and the willful infringement
determination. We vacate the district court’s denial of
WBIP’s motion for a permanent injunction, and remand
for further consideration.

The technology

Westerbeke Corporation1 and Kohler are competitors
who manufacture and sell marine generators (“gen-sets”)
that are used on houseboats to create electrical power for
appliances such as refrigerators and air conditioners.
Gen-sets have two main parts, an engine and a generator.
The exhaust from a typical engine in a gen-set, like any
gasoline-powered engine, contains carbon monoxide,
which can cause asphyxiation at certain concentrations.
Carbon monoxide is particularly dangerous on boats,
where the living quarters are confined in close proximity
to the engine.


Sunday, July 17, 2016

CBS Sunday Morning on July 17, 2016

Jane Pauley, not Charles Osgood, hosted Sunday Morning on July 17, 2016.

One story of IP interest was the cover story of Mo Rocca on Cleveland, which mentioned that Cleveland was the "silicon valley" of its time, and brought up the term "disruptive technology." The car works of Alexander Winton were mentioned, as was the
distinctive logo of the Winton automobile, which had a forward slanting "O". Charles Brush and his power generating windmill were mentioned. Mo Rocca emphasized that the rich of that Cleveland were self-made men, who invented a product that made them rich.
During the story, the issue of "why" Cleveland did not become "motor city" arose, but elsewhere one had the line "At least we aren't Detroit." And yes, "mistake on the lake" came up.
CBS did not mention Winton's role in patent battles involving The Electric Vehicle Company and Winton's later membership in ALAM, which sued Henry Ford over the Selden patent.

A trademark matter came up in John Blackstone's piece on the band Chicago, once Chicago Transit Authority. It was mentioned that the logo Chicago clearly only meant the band, not the city. Also, the idea that the switch from "Chicago Transit Authority" was necessitated by a complaint was repudiated.

Of interest to IPBiz was a story by Tracy Smith titled How parrots help veterans with PTSD

At Serenity Park, Zoe [an African Grey parrot] and three dozen other birds are part of an animal therapy program that pairs them with vets suffering from PTSD. The veterans say that, somehow, the parrots can connect with them in a way that no human therapist ever could.


Serenity Place was the idea of psychologist Lorin Lindner, who used to take veterans she was working with to another parrot sanctuary she ran north of L.A., and was surprised at how well parrots and vets got along.

"All of a sudden I'd see this transformation come over them," Lindner said. "They'd be holding the birds in their arms and calling them sweet terms, and I hadn't seen that in the group therapy I'd been doing with them."

So ten years ago, Lindner got the V.A. Medical Center to give her enough land to set up a few bird cages, and with a budget based solely on donations Serenity Park was born.


Harvard University researcher Irene Pepperberg says few people are prepared for a parrot in their lives.

"Imagine taking a five-year-old child, putting it in a playpen with a few toys and a few snacks for ten hours a day," she said. "Doesn't work that way."

What's more, a parrot can be a lifetime commitment.

"Because they live forever -- I won't say forever, but 40, 50 years is very common," said Pepperberg.

As a result, parrots can outlive their original owners. And those that do are often abused or discarded.

Most of the Serenity Park birds went through hell at some point in their lives, just like the people who now care for them.

"There is an unspoken communication between one sentient being that has suffered trauma and another," said Serenity Park operations manager Matt Simmons. "And you feel that."

CBS did not mention Pepperberg's parrot, Alex, who lived only from 1976 to September 6, 2007.
CBS did not mention that Pepperberg's Ph.D. is in chemistry.

The Smith piece had a photo of Bacardi, a blue and gold macaw and a clip with an umbrella cockatoo, Phoebe.

There was mention of the sale of the Longaberger Basket Building.

The "moment of nature" was Cuyahoga Valley National Park.

Friday, July 15, 2016

Orphan drug status for Crestor?

Note the article in the New York Times by Andrew Pollack about Crestor titled
AstraZeneca Pushes to Protect Crestor From Generic Competition

Note separately the article by Murphy: Unintended Effects of Orphan Product Designation for Rare Neurological Diseases, especially Table 2: Blockbuster drugs that have obtained orphan drug designation

CAFC in Skyhawke continues the ordinary rule counseling against prevailing party appeals

The CAFC observed:

SkyHawke points us
to no authority to suggest that Congress intended the use
of “dissatisfied with” in conjunction with “final decision”
to broaden the appeal rights from Board decisions to
include those of prevailing parties who are merely dissatisfied
with the Board’s reasoning.