Tuesday, January 31, 2012

KRIPPELZ loses to Ford at CAFC

The conclusion:

Because claim 2 of the ’903 patent is invalid, we need not reach the other issues put forward by the parties, i.e., the district court’s summary judgment of infringement and its willfulness analysis. Those decisions are now moot and as such are vacated.

We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of JMOL of invalidity, vacate its summary judgment of infringement and its willfulness analysis, and remand for entry of judgment of non-liability for Ford.

The CAFC issued a reminder about the impact of drawings:

This court has repeatedly cautioned against overreliance on drawings that are neither expressly to scale nor linked to quantitative values in the specification. See Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Grp. Int’l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127 (CCPA 1977). However, Ford does not appeal, and so we do not take up, the trial court’s denial of Ford’s motion to exclude Dr. Hansler’s ray trace diagrams. See Tr. of Dec. 8, 2008 Proceedings, at 39:19–22, J.A. 8349, 8387. In light of Ford’s decision to not appeal the admis- sion of this evidence, it was properly before the jury. On the basis of Dr. Hansler’s testimony, we cannot say that no reasonable jury could have concluded that Figure 17’s disclosure was not anticipating.

Ford won for a different reason:

DuBois expressly states that other embodiments could use lamps in addition to the one disclosed in its figures, including “a headlight, parking light, or other body light.” DuBois at 2, J.A. 13432. The evidence at trial—including testimony from Dr. Hansler himself—was that a headlight (as that word was used in DuBois) creates a “beam of light.” Trial Tr. 531:25–532:2, J.A. 9033–34. Dr. Hansler’s “ray trace” diagrams of figure 17 notwithstanding, there is no question that DuBois’s disclosure of a “headlight” teaches the required “beam of light.”

Dr. Hansler also opined to the jury that any beam in DuBois, even if it was a beam, did not anticipate because it was not necessarily “conical.” He pointed to DuBois’s discussion of “lighting the pavement obliquely on the surface of a rectangle” adjacent to the vehicle. JMOL Op., 750 F. Supp. 2d at 945; see also DuBois (trans.) at 2, J.A. 13432. Dr. Hansler testified that it is “not possible” for a conical beam of light to illuminate a rectangle. Trial Tr. 555:14–19, J.A. 9957. While expressing some skepticism about this reasoning, the district court nevertheless held that a jury could reasonably agree with it.

We disagree as a matter of law. While DuBois discusses illuminating the area within a rectangle on the pavement next to the car, nowhere does it require that such illumination be only with non-conical light beams. Indeed, many figures in DuBois depict triangles of light extending from various lamps to the surface of the ground. There is no language in DuBois disavowing the most natural interpretation of those triangles, i.e., as two- dimensional depictions of light cones.

The district court made a legal error as to "teaching away" -->

First and foremost, teaching away is not relevant to an anticipation analysis; it is only a component of an obviousness analysis. Celeritas Techs., Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Secondly, the opinions of Dr. Hansler are not a substitute for the actual DuBois disclosure. When all elements of the device are shown in a single prior art reference, as here, the question of “teaching away” does not arise.

The concept of "obvious design choice" arose in a footnote:

Though it is unnecessary to reach the issue here, we further believe that the requirement of a light beam that is “conical” (ignoring, for the moment, the reasons just discussed why DuBois satisfies that limitation) would almost certainly be an obvious modification to DuBois precluding patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

HTC v. IPCom: not indefinite

As to the result:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.’s (“HTC”) motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,830, owned by IPCom GmbH & Co., KG (“IPCom”). The district court concluded that those claims were indefinite because they claimed both an apparatus and method steps. We reverse the district court’s judgment because the district court misconstrued the claims, which cover only an apparatus.

The details:

The district court erred in construing claims 1 and 18 because it failed to adhere to the principles of claim construction set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). To facilitate our claim construction analysis, we recite the relevant portion of the claims again, annotate them with numbered paragraphs, and emphasize key terms:

[1] A mobile station for use with a network includ- ing a first base station and a second base station that achieves a handover from the first base sta- tion to the second base station by:
[2] storing link data for a link in a first base sta- tion,
[3] holding in reserve for the link resources of the first base station, and
[4] when the link is to be handed over to the sec- ond base station:
5] initially maintaining a storage of the link data in the first base station,
[6] initially causing the resources of the first base station to remain held in reserve, and
[7] at a later timepoint . . . deleting the link data from the first base station and freeing up the re- sources of the first base station, the mobile station comprising:
[8] an arrangement for reactivating the link with the first base station if the handover is unsuccess- ful.
’830 patent col.8 ll.12–32, col.10 l.61–col.12 l.6 (emphases added). The parties disagree whether the mobile station or the network, both recited in paragraph 1, implements the six functions enumerated in paragraphs 2–7. If the mobile station implements the functions, the claims are indefinite because they recite both an apparatus—the mobile station—and method steps—the functions enu- merated in paragraphs 2–7. If the network performs the functions, the claims are not indefinite because the claims merely describe the network environment in which the mobile station must be used. The district court concluded, without complying with Phillips’s claim construction principles, that the mobile station implements the func- tions recited in paragraphs 2–7.

Of the law:

Words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Concep- tronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The plain language of claims 1 and 18 indicates that the network, not the mobile station, performs the enumerated functions.

Preamble within a preamble:

Both the MEC claim and the claims ii>n this case feature what the MEC court called a “preamble-within-a-preamble” format. Id. Although the MEC court acknowledged that such a format is unconven- tional, the court found the claim sufficiently clear to apprise a person of when infringement occurs. Id. The unconventional format of claims 1 and 18, likewise, does not preclude the claims from being definite.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

"The Good Wife" on January 29, 2012: "Another Ham Sandwich"

"Another Ham Sandwich" recalled episode 17, second season, entitled "Ham Sandwich" (original air date March 22, 2011) in which Lockhart & Gardner's David Lee and Alicia Florrick represented drug kingpin Lemond Bishop in his divorce and custody settlements; Blake confronted Kalinda about her one-night affair with Peter Florrick; Kalinda was subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury related to a variety of her past crimes with Alicia advising Kalinda to not answer questions (on grounds she might incriminate herself); wherein the grand jury questions suggested that Cook County State Attorney Glenn Childs may have had another target in mind.

Main plots of tonight's episode surround evidence against Will Gardner in an effort to send him to prison for judicial bribery; Eli Gold and rival lobbyist/businesswoman Stacie Hall face off.

Individuals in a courtroom creating marker and pencil doodles on legal pads -- a line, an eye and brow, what appears to be a pirate, a compass, etc. A woman's voice states: "...trial for a crime punishable by imprisonment unless the initial charge has been brought by indictment of a grand jury. And that's where you come in. You are 16 citizens who have been given an immense responsibility. You must decide a man's fate. My name is Wendy Scott-Carr and this is Deputy State's Attorney Cary Agos and A.S.A. Dana Lodge. We are the prosecution. Unlike a trial, there is no defense. You will only hear our case. It is up to us to convince you that there's probable cause to bring William Paul Gardner to trial."

There is a group of people at the offices of Lockhart & Gardner. Diane greets Alicia, apologizing and thanking her for waiting. Alicia asks if everything is "all right;" Diane responds, "Uh, no," and that she wanted to talk to Alicia before she broke it to the equity partners and associates. Alicia asks if it's about Will. Diane responds, "Yes. A jury has been impaneled and our expectation is he will be indicted within the next two days...judicial bribery...of course, it's not true, but the State's Attorney believes that Will arranged bets between judges and bookies at his Wednesday night basketball game. Alicia responds she didn't know it was "that serious" to which Diane says, "It is. Felony bribery...three-to-seven years." Alicia asks if it's Wendy Scott-Carr or Peter? Diane states, "Both...Peter has put Wendy Scott-Carr in charge of the prosecution. Alicia asks what she can do. Diane responds that she doesn't want Alicia to feel responsible, or obligated, to do anything, then retracts "responsible," and states to Alicia, "We've never considered you an extension of the State Attorney's office and you've never acted like one. So, again, I leave it to you." They both leave the office and Alicia is met by Caitlin (David Lee's niece) who asks if she wants her to help Mr. Gold today. Alicia tells her "Yes." Caitlin further asks if there's anything Alicia wants help with, and Alicia responds, "Nope." Alicia heads over to her husband's office; initially, he is not there. As she begins to leave, Peter calls her, asks her what's wrong, what she needs. Alicia says she has to "rush off, it's nothing...it's about Jackie, we can talk about it later." They agree on eight o'clock, tonight.

Courtroom is in session and Attorney Elsbeth Tascioni and Will are speaking in hallway. Alicia arrives; she and Will speak. He says he's sorry. Alicia states, "No. Why? I am." Will says he didn't tell her because it's legal, Alicia tells him he doesn't have to explain, and Will states further that if he told her it would become personal. She states she's a lawyer, a third-year associate in his firm, so "use me." Alicia and Ms. Tascioni greet one another (recall she represented Alicia in the case involving the U.S. Treasury); Alicia relays her desire to help with what she knows about the State's Attorney (her husband, Peter).

Andrew Wiley is on the witness stand and states he was hired as an investigator by the State's Attorney's Office. Cary asked if in that capacity he reviewed Mr. Gardner's cases. He states he did and that he was surprised by how many cases, both civil and criminal, in which Mr. Gardner achieved a successful verdict. Cary asks him to elaborate, Andrew responds that on average you would expect a 60% win rate as a ceiling but that with Mr. Gardner's cases, he had 75% wins. Cary asks Andrew if he found anything suspicious with regard to which judges ruled favorably for Mr. Gardner and Andrew responds affirmatively, that three judges decided favorably for Mr. Gardner 95% of the time: Judges Winner, Dunway and Parks. He further stated he discovered that they all played regularly in a pick-up game on Wednesday nights run by Will Gardner.

Diane arrives at court and Ms. Tascioni, talking strategy, tells her she's up next. Will asks Diane how the partners responded; she states they were concerned and that they will work the phones in the afternoon to handle clients. Diane asks how things are there. Ms. Tascioni asks Alicia to join them, Will agrees. Ms. Tascioni states, "Grand juries indict, that's what they do, hamburgers and all." Will corrects, "ham sandwiches." She agrees, tells Will he will get indicted unless someone "pulls the plug, someone higher" to which Will adds, "State's Attorney." Ms. Tascioni tells Diane she has an audience of one in the courtroom. Cary, who defers to the State's Attorney. She further states, "Wendy Scott-Carr does not...you need to keep bringing the testimony back to Peter Florrick." Alicia adds, "that'll get Cary talking to Peter." "That's right. If you want to stop this at the grand jury stage you need to get the State's Attorney to stop it, and he'll only stop it if it looks like it will hurt him," strategizes Ms. Tascioni. Will agrees, "Yes. Good."

Eli phones Alicia from GLAC (Gay & Lesbian Alliance of Chicago), angry that she is not there to campaign against the Defense of Marriage Act, and that Caitlin is there (who he refers to as "Alicia Light"). Alicia asks why Eli wanted her, and he states it's because she's a "gay icon" according to the "gay blogosphere," that she's "one of those spurned wives" whose suffering has made her iconic. Eli states that GLAC has a lot of money to fight DOMA. Alicia tells Eli he is who they want and that Caitlin is smart, studious and the niece of David Lee (the divorce attorney) and that means something to Spencer Roth. Eli is stunned and states that he and Alicia need to talk. Stacie Hall comes from around a corridor, giggling and engaged in animated conversation with a man (likely Spencer Roth), stating "I'll be waiting by the phone...don't you dare...it'll get ugly..."). Eli and Stacie greet one another; she states they shouldn't be enemies, but friends, despite being "all for the same jobs." Eli says they should be "best friends." She asks his pitch on DOMA, and he responds that it's wrong. She giggles and says she wants to learn from him, there's so much she could learn -- and says she wants to have lunch. Eli agrees. She then changes her mind -- instead, she wants hot drinks -- mulled wine with brandy -- they're amazing, and she will call him. Eli grimaces, then phones a male switchboard operator at GLAC, states he is Stacie Hall's assistant having a hard time texting her, that she's currently in a meeting with Spencer Roth and he (Eli) wants to leave an immediate message that her 11 a.m. meeting with Rush Limbaugh has moved to noon.

Back to the grand jury courtroom. When questioned by Scott-Carr, Diane agrees she and Will have known one another for eight years and that they were originally partners in opposing firms. Scott-Carr asks Diane if she knew about Will's troubles at his first Baltimore firm. Diane states she'll need more clarity in order to answer that, and Scott-Carr states that Diane knew that Will took $45,000 from a client's account to pay off a gambling debt. Diane responds that all she knew was what she heard from Scott-Carr when she questioned Diane in her office, and that Peter Florrick, State's Attorney, doesn't feel there's enough there to prosecute him. Scott-Carr states she understands her defensiveness, and Diane responds she thought she was just being clear. Scott-Carr asks her if she has ever been to one of Mr. Gardner's pick-up basketball games; Diane responds, "No." When Scott-Carr why not, Diane responds that she doesn't play basketball. She asks Diane if Will has asked her to go; Diane responds, "Yes." Scott-Carr asks why he would ask her to go if she doesn't play basketball; Diane responds, "he said it was a good place to go to meet judges and prosecutors who matter, for example, Peter Florrick, the current State's Attorney, often participated in the pick-up games." When Scott-Carr suggested that Diane decided not to go to those pick-up games because she thought there was something corrupt about these relationships, Diane denied this and stated again it was because she does not play basketball Further, Diane offered she does not think there is anything wrong with judges and lawyers unwinding over sports and her guess is that the current State's Attorney doesn't think so either, or he wouldn't participate. Dana asks Cary what she is doing, and he replies that Diane is tying Peter Florrick to Will's case. Scott-Carr asks Diane about the McDermott lawsuit, involving a child who died from eating food tainted with peanut oil, a client she (Diane) brought into the firm, but Will took it over from her. Diane agrees. Scott-Carr asks why and Diane responds that Will thought he would be better. Scott-Carr states that Will took the case only after a change of courts, after Judge Parks took over case. Diane agrees. Scott-Carr asks Diane if she explained to her associates that the switch was because Will had a better relationship with Judge Robert Parks. Diane agrees. Diane leaves the courtroom and requests that she and Will talk. Diane tells him there was a lot of questioning about McDermott and wanted to know why they won that case. He stated it was a good case, they argued it well. She doesn't agree, stating it was not a good case and he argued it without her. She asks him how Scott-Carr knew about her conversations with the associates, Will glances at Kalinda and then tells Diane that they should talk.

Kalinda and Dana are in a garaged car; Dana states she doesn't want to see Alicia prosecuted either, but she needs more, that the McDermott file doesn't connect the dots, stating it isn't for her, but for Scott-Carr. Give her evidence on Alicia and they'll tear up the Gardner matter; Kalinda nods.

Ms. Tascion advises David Lee to smile or he will appear hostile in front of the grand jury. She then approaches Will and Kalinda who are chatting privately; they were worried about the McDermott case and the grand jury questions would suggest deeper familiarity, as if someone were providing information to them. Will agrees, says they were just talking about that; Kalinda says she'll check into it and she departs.

Caitlin brings copies to Eli, who in turn hands her a list of items he requests from downstairs, and she departs. Alicia walks into his office and notes the copies are from last year; Eli states he may need them again...Eli states he wants to be freed up so he can work, after Alicia asks who he is acting out against. Alicia suggests he use paralegals, Eli is sarcastic when he states that he wants Caitlin. He states he wants to talk about Alicia's attitude, that he outranks her as an equity partner and he "feels" (marriage counselor-speak) that she is treating him with the same degree of disregard as when he was Peter's campaign strategist; he thinks it is wrong and that they all need to evaluate anew their working relationship there. She agrees and asks what he needs. Eli requests her help with his pitch for GLAC, that Spencer Roth wants the pitch of all of GLAC by Wednesday; she agrees they should begin working on it.

Back in the courtroom, Dana asks David Lee if he still agrees with his Chicago Magazine interview quote, "What I love about Will Gardner is he is as sneaky as I am," to which Lee replies, "I think what I meant 'is sneakily charming'." She then says, "So that's why the next line reads 'The sneaky thing is to cross that ethical line and not lose track of your client' -- is that what you meant?" Lee chuckles, "Uh, something like that." Dana continues, "You did contract work for Judge Parks, didn't you? Lee says he did. Dana continues, "his wife was ill and you helped him with a will and his children's trust..." Lee answers, "If 'by help' you mean he paid me, yes." She asked if he paid less than what usual for this kind of work and Lee said what he paid was fair, considering the will and trust were simpler than most. She asked if Will brought the judge to Lee, and he said that was probably right. She asked if the case was a pay-off for the judge deciding the McDermott case for Lee; he replied it was an odd pay-off to charge him for work Lee did. She asked if this was a conflict of interest and he stated it was no more a conflict than the trust work he did for the current State's Attorney, Peter Florrick, their boss, for which he charged even less than Judge Parks. Lee states, "If this is a conflict of interests, isn't that?" He enters the hallway and says to Will, "that's how a pro does it...you're welcome" telling him they asked all about Judge Parks. Will enters Judge Parks' chambers and Andrew Wiley (with his child in a stroller) follows him into the reception area, inquiring about a rest room with a changing table; Wiley takes a photo of a manila envelope being exchanged from Will to Judge Parks to Will while the receptionist fusses over his child.

Stacie and Eli are sharing their hot drinks; she states she has a sweet tooth and places ample amounts of whipped cream into Eli's and her drinks; Eli finds it very sweet. She has met Eli at noon, to toast "Eli and Stacie, new friends" when she was "scheduled" to meet Rush Limbaugh to argue against DOMA. She states that she desires Eli, every part of him. there on the floor of the bar. At first, he snickers. He then tells her to make the first move, he's ready. She dares him to. He calls her bluff when she does nothing and he tells her it's called Sun Tzu, destabilizing your enemy. He then tells her the only problem with Sun Tzu is he never fought the Jews: "We're Masada, baby, we don't mess around with mind-games, we use knives." After a few more words, she applies whipped cream to his fingers and licks it off. Eli says it's lacking subtlety, as she continues.

Peter and Alicia meet at her home and over wine, says he will talk to Jackie (his mother). Alicia is appreciative and says she doesn't want things turning sour. Peter asks how things are there and Alicia says "good...work is hard, of course, because of this grand jury investigation...." Alicia asks Peter what's going on and he replies he doesn't think they can have this conversation, that it has nothing to do with them, that's why he chose Scott-Carr. Alicia presses and asks how it can not, that Scott-Carr is making it worse. Peter states she is not him; Alicia says it keeps his hands clean at the expense of her firm (and Peter asks, "Will?"). Alicia's boss with whom she's sleeping...Peter yells, "Of course that's the issue!" Alicia states there is nothing between her and Will. Peter states he used to be able to tell when she was lying, manipulating the truth like a pro. Alicia states, "Well, you would know about pro's." Peter says he will not stop the grand jury, like he did in the past -- stopping things that worked that were wrong. Alicia states his problem was that he didn't do things that were wrong, but he did things that were wrong against his family. Peter states that may be so, but Will Gardner is not his family.

Back at the courtroom, Cary questions Judge Parks whether he is a reluctant witness, who states he thinks what is occurring is a witch-hunt, trying to criminalize behavior ("friendships and acquaintances between justices and attorneys outside work") that is far from criminal. When questioned, Judge Parks states, "Upon the advice of counsel, I am here to assert my right under the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, even when asked if he met with Will Gardner the day before. The prosecution produces the photo of him with Will taken by Investigator Wiley. Judge Parks leaves the courtroom, asks Will if he is setting him up (because of the photo) and states that Will "brought them" to him -- if Will goes down, he (Parks) is not going down, too, and he walks away. Ms. Tascion approaches Will and Kalinda, stating she can see there is strategy going on there, inquiring whether or not it is legal. Alicia phones Will to recommend he assert his rights under the Fifth Amendment. Will isn't sure, but states his attorney wants him to. She says she is sorry, he tells her not to be. She insists she is, Will tells her then be sorry this is happening, not because of anything else. She tells him, "Do good." He replies, "Always."

David Lee enters Eli's office, tossing files off Eli's desk. Eli calls for Caitlin to pick up the files. Lee tells Eli Caitlin will not be picking up the files, and Eli states, "It's such a double-edged sword; nepotism gets you the job while you have to clean up all the poop your uncle should. Lee inquires how the campaign is going for Peter Florrick, stating he hopes "well" because Alicia and he have been chatting, attorney-client privilege and he can't share any information. Caitlin enters, Lee says Eli doesn't need her and she leaves. Lee tells Eli that he loves his niece, she is all that is good in the world and Eli ought to "clean that up."

Back at the courtroom, Scott-Carr asks Gardner if he met with Judge Parks the day before. Will answers he did. She thanks him for not pleading the Fifth, presents a photo of him (which Will acknowledges) and asks what is in the envelope. Gardner replies, "Money." Scott-Carr appears to be very confident. She asks if there was an agreement between him and Judge Parks based on the exchange of that cash, and he answers there was. Pressed further, he states it was for Judge Park to give to UNICEF for their immunization drive in Uganda. Scott-Carr begins to stammer, questioning how much money it was; Will tells her $2000. She asks if Gardner thinks $2000 is a lot of money to go to UNICEF; he agrees with her that it is, because he thinks children in Uganda should be immunized. She asks Will if it isn't "just a little bit suspicious" that he gave Judge Parks money on the eve of his testifying at the grand jury. Will states he hadn't thought of it. She asks why they should trust the money was for UNICEF. He offers to and produces a receipt. Scott-Carr places a copy of an email (received from Dana) purportedly from Will to Judge Parks exchanging information about which settlement would be agreeable to his client. Will asks her, "Really? Where did you get it?" She asks if the emails are from him to Judge Parks; he replies they are not. She asks him to read to whom the emails are addressed. He states it says Judge Parks, but someone must have typed over the real addressee. She asks why someone would do that. Will states he has no idea and produces original emails. Scott-Carr states she wants to go back to Judge Parks and doesn't want to know about the original emails. Will testifies anyway, stating they were addressed to his partner, Diane Lockhart and that it's only natural to discuss the award amount. Scott-Carr tries to quiet Will and demands that information be struck from the record.

Kalinda is outside the courtroom and Dana approaches her, stating, "You fooled me?" Kalinda replies, "Yeah...go ahead...hit me...it'll make you feel better. Dana slaps Kalinda's cheek and departs. Will leaves the courtroom, gesturing to Kalinda a right 'thumb's-up' and whispers to her that he "owes" her. Kalinda replies that he doesn't, smiling. Ms. Tascion approaches them stating she (Scott-Carr) promises a new subpoena and she figures it will become personal. Ms. Tascion realizes Will gave Scott-Carr the McDermott case as bait so she wouldn't go where he is vulnerable (by serving a subpoena on Alicia).

At GLAC, Caitlin asks Alicia if she's heard from Mr. Gardner and if she knew why Mr. Gold is being "so cold" to her now, not talking to her. Alicia tells Caitlin she though Eli was overworking her and distracted and not to worry. Caitlin tells Alicia she wanted to tell Eli something about the meeting, but he won't listen. Alicia asks, "What?" Stacie phones Eli to tell him she's in her bed, thinking of him, that he shouldn't have 'wimped out last night'; Eli responds that she's just trying to throw him off of his meeting with Spencer Roth which is to occur in five minutes. Stacie agrees (although she is shown to be in bed), Eli states he is not "thrown" and something about 'kicking her ass'. He introduces Roth to Alicia, Roth gives her a compliments about her suit and Alicia asks Roth if he would just give the three of them (Eli, Caitlin and herself) a few moments to themselves. Alicia prompts Caitlin to tell Eli what she learned; he appears exasperated with her. Bottom line, GLAC is not about DOMA; it didn't add up to Caitlin that GLAC would be searching for a crisis manager to fight against DOMA when, as she learned by studying for the meeting, that the national committee was handling it; further, in reading some gay blogs she learned that Spencer Roth wrote a letter in support of the proposed AT&T merger with T-Mobile as "Acting-Head" of GLAC; AT&T supposedly gave GLAC a $60,000 grant last week. Alicia adds that this is about damage control - the GLAC board does not want to be criticized for its involvement in the merger; they're attacking DOMA to sidestep publicity that they're really shopping for crisis managers. Eli realizes they have to change their pitch immediately and suggests "attacking the GLAK board is attacking gays" and he asks if Alicia thinks it is too cynical. Alicia tells Eli to thank Caitlin, and he does. Alicia's phone rings, she says it's about Will and she departs.

Ms. Tascion and Alicia are speaking at the courthouse about Scott-Carr targeting the McDermott case and Alicia is questioning why she is being subpoenaed, despite never working on that case. Ms. Tascion suggests Scott-Carr will probably probe Alicia about things Will did that she could paint as legally questionable, reminding her a prosecutor can ask anything at a grand jury hearing. She asks Alicia what she knows that could hurt Will.

In the courtroom, Alicia is spelling her last name and states it's the same spelling as her husband's, the State's Attorney. Scott-Carr asks if they've met before and Alicia responds that they have, at last year's State's Attorney elections (and she had lost, to Peter). She asks Alicia how long she has worked at Lockhart & Gardner and who hired her: two and one-half years and Will Gardner. Alicia affirmed that she and Will were friends in college, at Georgetown. She asks Alicia how long it had been since she had last practiced law: 13 years, to raise her children. "A 13-year layoff; that was quite generous of Mr. Gardner," quips Scott-Carr. She asks Alicia if she has ever seen Mr. Gardner do anything she would consider illegal, and she replies, "Not that I recall." Scott-Carr then asks if, since joining his firm, Alicia has been engaged in a sexual relationship with Mr. Gardner; Alicia questions the relevance of her query. Cary approaches Scott-Carr, telling her this line of questioning is inappropriate. Scott-Carr tells Cary the jury needs to know if she has an incentive to protect him. Cary tells her he speculated about the Alicia-Will relationship with her in confidence. Scott-Carr states that if he is uncomfortable, he is free to "step out." Scott-Carr asks Alicia again, and she answers affirmatively. She asks Alicia if their sexual relationship is still active; Alicia states it is not. Scott-Carr asks for the start and finish, Alicia states it began in spring and ended a few months ago. Scott-Carr then asks if during the course of this relationship with Will if her office was moved to the 28th floor, the floor of the senior partners; she states it was. Alicia rises from her seat and begins to leave after Scott-Carr asks whether during that time she was advised she was on track to make partner. Scott-Carr advises her to sit, declares she is not excused. Alicia states she is out-of-control. [During her questioning, Alicia glances at Cary a number of times; he appears unsettled.] Scott-Carr tells her she will be held in contempt if does not return to her seat. Alicia replies, "Fine, arrest me!" and departs.

Ms. Tascioni and Alicia cross paths on the street and Alicia learns the grand jury transcript will not be made public unless Will is indicted, that it's 'state-sealed.' Alicia tells her she has to get home to her children.

Eli meets Stacie at the same bar, having ordered the same drinks and whipped cream they shared previously. Stacie wants to know what the surprise is; Eli says it's that he desires her, too. Stacie repeats his earlier words, "just trying to throw me off my game," and he agrees, but stated he still desires her. She suggests they go do something about it: his apartment is 15" away, hers is 10"; they tease about playing chicken, swerving off the road and crashing, then they kiss. He then tells her he got the GLAC account; she doesn't believe him. He states he got the call about an hour ago and he still desires her "the way a victor desires his spoils." He asks how she is going to 'play this' -- "contrite and compliant or tough and brash" -- she says they should go and have intercourse. She leaves while Eli settles the tab.

Back in the courtroom, Scott-Carr addresses the jury stating, "...if there are no further questions, the people of Illinois ask that you vote a true bill to indict Mr. Gardner on the charges of conspiracy to commit bribery and interfering with a judicial officer, Class 3 and Class 2 felonies. Please signify by raising your hands." A female juror has a question: "Who is this Peter everyone was talking about?" Cary responds that it is Peter Florrick, State's Attorney, who hired Ms. Scott-Carr to conduct investigation. The juror then asks if it isn't weird to bring in his wife and Scott-Carr replies they are only permitted by law to answer questions about the facts of the case. The juror continues, "I mean, who cares who she sleeps with...I mean, if she's getting some, great." Another juror states, "Here's what I don't get. Why even go after Will Gardner? Why not that judge guy? ...And, at least Will Gardner answered the questions; the judge just kept taking the Fifth." A juror asks, "Maybe this judge knows Peter Florrick. Maybe they should both be arrested." Another juror, "I think Florrick and the judge are in it together." Others agree.

Eli and Stacie have are through with intercourse and asks Eli to hand her robe to her, uncovering a booklet with Virginia Gold for State Senate. Stacie states it's "just a mock-up" and talks about suggesting a deeper blue border to make it "pop." Eli asks if she's working on his ex-wife's campaign, and Stacie replies "only 'cause she asked me; she threw me a lot of business in D.C." Eli states that's why he's there, gestures while leaving. Stacie tells Eli she desires him.

Alicia is at home when her children arrive and they ask if something is wrong; she says there isn't, but she just wants to talk to them. The phone rings, Kalinda tells Alicia there's no bill. "They didn't indict a ham sandwich...Will's free." Kalinda invites her to the office where they're having a party. Alicia declines and thanks her for calling. Will asks his attorney to dance, and she declines. Diane and Will greet and Will says that was "a close one." Diane agrees asks they try to reduce the excitement level and joins Will for a dance. The Florrick children ask if the phone call was work and if it was good and remind her they were going to talk. Alicia states it was and that she hasn't been the best mother, that she wants to change all that -- she thinks she should take a week off from work and they should take a vacation.

Peter states he wants to thank Ms. Scott-Carr for her service and says she is excused. She says they can still indict Will Gardner, with the next grand jury. She says there are "other ways." He asks, "By calling my wife?" She replies it was a strategic move, thanks her again for her service and offers his assistant will validate her parking. She turns to leave and halts, saying she's sending Will Gardner's infractions to the bar association and if Peter won't pursue him, they will. He tells her to do what she has to do and to leave his office.

[The next new episode of 'The Good Wife' will air on February 19, 2012.]

60 Minutes on January 29, 2012: U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and Can Endangered Animal Hunts Save Species?

U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta faces future challenges including halting nuclear bomb production in Iran; NFL commisioner Roger Goodell on his $10 billion/year business model; Texas ranches that offer exotic big-game hunting.

Leon Panetta, reported by Scott Pelley: United States Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Director of the CIA, and now Secretary of Defense. Seventy-three years old, he sought and located Osama bin Laden. He had left Washington to his home in California until President-elect Obama asked him to lead the CIA in 2009, although Panetta had never worked in intelligence. President Obama made Mr. Panetta Secretary of Defense this past summer, with responsibilities including managing three million employees, fighting three wars, and stopping Iran from building an atom bomb. On January 24, 2012, before his State of the Union Address, the nation heard President Obama state to Mr. Panetta, "Good job tonight. Good job." Probably only 10 people knew that the Navy's Seal Team Six had just rescued two hostages in Somalia, including an American. Pelley asked Panetta to declare how many countries in which we are currently engaged in a shooting war and Panetta answered, "Obviously we're going after al Qaeda, wherever they're at...we're confronting al Qaeda in Pakistan...confronting the nodes of al Qaeda in Yemen, in Somalia, in North Africa." Panetta has 90,000 troops in Afghanistan, in Iraq, the war is ending, and in Libya, he'd helped depose Qaddafi. Panetta travels on a flying command post from which he can reach every American warplane, submarine and missile silo. If President Obama ordered a nuclear war, Panetta would launch it from what they call the "doomsday plane" [Panetta and Pelley were in the aircraft during this part of the interview it is laden with secret gear that is not part of the interview and is so heavy that the Air Force refueled it twice in the night sky over the Atlantic.] Panetta stated President Obama would "very possibly be on this aircraft, to be able to direct what happens in that situation." Panetta's aircraft compartment has just two chairs, two bunks, two phones - for him and President Obama. Panetta stated he concerns himself with what he and Obama would do if Iran built a singular nuclear weapon, not worrying about Russia's thousands, stating it's a "red line" for them, a common sentiment shared by the Israelis. Panetta stated that if he received knowledge that Iran were proceeding with developing a nuclear weapon, they would stop it, with military, if necessary, believing it would probably take Iran about a year to be able to produce a bomb and up to two years to be able to put the bomb on a deliverable vehicle. Pelley stated, "Panetta knows more than he tells; maybe he knows who's bombing Iranian scientists, why Iran's missile facility mysteriously blew up or how a computer virus wrecked Iran's uranium enrichment plant. Judging from the U.S. spy drone that fell in Iran, America and its allies are waging war without sending thousands of troops." Pelley stated that Panetta is "rarely far from an eyelid collapsing, ground shaking, belly laugh...he stays in touch with his humanity and where he came from." Panetta's home is on a northern California farm where he grew up; he points to walnut trees he, his father and brother planted 65 years ago; he and his wife, Sylvia, raised their three sons there (one served in Afghanistan). Panetta's parents arrived from Italy without a word of English. His father stated Leon was "well-trained to go to Washington because he'd been dodging those nuts all his my life." His mother hoped he'd become a pianist (he appears to play very well), but Panetta represented his home district in Congress for 16 years, became President Clinton's Budget Director and worked with Congress to balance the federal budget for the only time in the last 42 years. He stated he was surprised, yet challenged, to become the Director of the CIA. His first challenge was when President Obama ordered him to rethink the search for Osama bin Laden. The U.S. lost him in 2001 in the mountains of Tora Bora, Afghanistan. Eighteen months into Panetta's directorship, the U.S. tracked al Qaeda couriers to a house in a remote village, Abbottabad, in Pakistan. For eight months, Panetta sent satellites, drones, officers and spies, but they were never sure that bin Laden was there. Pelley reports: "On April 30, 2011, Mr. Obama and Panetta made a point of being seen at the White House Correspondent's Dinner. Panetta's belly laugh was heard at every presidential punch line, but both men knew they'd just pulled the trigger. Seal Team Six would launch in 16 hours." In light of enormous risks, Panetta stated he recommended this operation be pulled off because "everybody played their role in a very effective and responsible way...this was the best case we had on bin Laden since Tora Bora. And because of that, because for 10 years we had run into dead ends trying to track bin Laden down, I thought for that reason alone, we had a responsibility to act." He proceeded without telling our Pakistani allies, concerned bin Laden might be alerted. Because Panetta couldn't figure how bin Laden lived more than five years, undetected, about a mile from Pakistan's military academy, akin to our West Point. Panetta stated he always felt somebody must have had a sense of what was going on at that compound - 12 and 18 foot walls around it, a seven foot wall on the third balcony of the house; the largest compound in the area; Pakistani military helicopters flew overhead. Panetta has no hard evidence the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was there, yet there was no escape route from the bin Laden house, as if the occupants were expecting plenty of warning should trouble arise. [On Panetta's office wall is a brick from the house with a label of bin Laden's code name: Geronimo, Abbottabad Pakistan, presented to Panetta by CIA officers.] After Panetta's appointment seven months ago, he arrives at the Pentagon at dawn and works into the night. Another of his current challenges is to manage the massive
defense budget cuts, well over $450 billion over the next 10 years, while maintaining "a military that protects us against a lot of threats that are out there, terrorism, Iran, North Korea, nuclear proliferation, problem of cyber attacks, rising powers like China...the toughest thing in this job frankly is writing the condolence letters to the parents of those young men who are killed in action...I also say to them, 'You know, your son or daughter is really a true hero and patriot because they were willing to give their life for their country. And that means that they'll never be forgotten,' and I hope that's some measure of comfort for them, because, in the end, it's the only comfort I have is to know that these kids, when they put their lives on the line, are helping America be strong for the future." [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367997/the-defense-secretary-an-interview-with-leon-panetta/]

Roger Goodell, reported by Steve Kroft: Only two institutions in this country with the power to create almost limitless amounts of money, the Federal Reserve run by Ben Bernanke and the National Football League, run by Commissioner Roger Goodell. The NFL's revenues are soaring in an economic slump, along with its tv ratings, the most successful entertainment enterprise in the country. Goodell states: "When we bring people into our stadium, or if they're watching on television, we want them to say, 'That was the greatest entertainment I've ever seen.'" American adaptation of the Roman Coliseum, all primal instincts -- sex, violence, tribalism, courage, joy, disappointment -- agile 300-pound gladiators, spear throwers, and acrobats. Best ones are multimillionaires often in the employ of billionaires, fortunate enough to own one of the NFL's 32 franchises, paying Goodell to manage their $10 billion-a-year business, resolve their disputes and protect their most valuable asset, The Game. Goodell states he makes a lot of decisions that are not in the best interests of individuals but always protects the integrity of the game (as he defines it). He is CEO, negotiator, arbitrator, disciplinarian, enforcer, cheerleader and custodian of a national pastime, paid $10 million/year, to tell the owners who hired him (some of the richest, smartest, most competitive people in the country) what is best for them or that he has to suspend (or fine) one of their top players for some infraction; the owners understand his responsibility and Goodell states he doesn't expect them to like everything he does, but he wants them to respect it. On a trip to Baltimore for a playoff game week before last, Goodell compared his job to being Speaker of the House because of political posturing, stating: "You have 32 teams and most of our big decisions have to be made on the basis of 24 votes. So a lot of what I have to do is go and convince at least 24 owners that we have a good solution...you have to go out and get those votes. Last week, Goodell;s contract was extended to 2019. Steve Bisciotti, owner of the Baltimore Ravens stated that he loses a lot of arguments to Roger, but he wins his fair share; Robert Kraft, owner of the New England Patriots stated that he wished the people in Washington would lead the way Roger does, possessing a good sense of balance to deal with 32 members of the board of directors. Last July, after months of contentious negotiations, Goodell and DeMaurice Smith of the NFL Players Association signed an unprecedented collective bargaining agreement that will bring a decade of labor peace and prosperity for each party, and last month Goodell and the NFL signed a record shattering nine-year deal with the television networks, including CBS, in which the owners and the players will split nearly $6 billion-a-year in revenue, following a season in which virtually all of the top rated TV shows were NFL games. Goodell is 52 years old and has spent his entire career working at the NFL, beginning as an intern who once drove NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle; this is the only job he ever wanted. He grew up in Washington, rooting for the Baltimore Colts (alongside his father, the late congressman and U.S. Senator Charles Goodell) and Johnny Unitas; he recently paid tribute to Unitas at his statue outside Baltimore's stadium. recently. [His father was one of the first Republicans to speak out against the Vietnam War in a speech before Congress; a copy of it hangs on the wall of the commissioner's office. Richard Nixon thought him an enemy and it cost Goodell the next election. It taught Roger courage in the face of adversity. And because he used to campaign with his father, he is accustomed to mingling with fans at stadiums and is a regular visitor to tailgating parties, occasionally sneaking into the cheap seats to see what the fans' experience is from there.] It is a goal to bring in more fans to the stadium; currently, 25% of the league's revenues (about $2.5 billion) is from ticket sales, with another 25% derived from licensing fees (footballs, league apparel, shot glasses, ice scrapers, etc.). Bud Light is reportedly spending $1 billion dollars over six years to be the official beer of the NFL, but the real key to the league's success is its unorthodox business model -- league rules require that the teams share most of their revenue with each other. Socialism combined with capitalism. Goodell states: "It's not just socialism. The NFL is essentially a cartel, albeit a legal one, thanks to a limited exemption from anti-trust laws granted by Congress more than 50 years ago." Kroft responds: "You've got 32 competing teams, but they share 80 percent of the revenues. You operate a draft for new players. There are salary caps. You depend on public tax money to help fund your stadiums." Goodell retorts: "...we look at it as trying to create the most competitive league we can...we want every fan to feel in the country is hope when the season starts that their team can end up holding that Super Bowl trophy...one of the stats we're most proud of in the last nine years we've had at least one team go from last to first." Kroft continues, "The result is a financially engineered equality that allows a small town team in Green Bay, Wisconsin, to compete with a metropolis like New York. It produces lots of close games and those unscripted dramas that are essential to the NFL's appeal. Every Monday morning, in the league's New York Command Center, Commissioner Goodell and top officials conduct the ultimate Monday morning quarterback session, dissecting and discussing the weekend's most controversial plays." [Carl Johnson: So what we're gonna have here is an inadvertent whistle...] Kroft: "This was the first time cameras have ever been allowed into the meeting. On this Monday morning following the first round of the playoffs, two blown calls that were irreversible because of early whistles from the referees drew the attention of Goodell and Vice President of Officiating Carl Johnson...." The point of the reviews is to see where mistakes were made, where improvements are needed. Owners phone Goodell, Johnson and Head of Operations Ray Anderson. Goodell employs tough policies on players' personal conduct both in and out of uniform, stating it is a privilege, not a right, to be associated with the NFL. Concussions have always been a part of the NFL and are now treated as a serious brain injury; only doctors determine a player's fitness to return to the game. But often the event goes unnoticed by officials and the player doesn't reveal it, although they are required to report such injuries. After some bad publicity and several lawsuits, the NFL and players have committed $100 million to fund concussion research, and they will provide more than and additional $1 billion to improve pensions and medical and disability benefits for retired players. There was no game tonight, however, the highly-anticipated Super Bowl is next Sunday, in Indianapolis, a rematch of the 2008 Super Bowl between the New York Giants and the New England Patriots, with Madonna performing at half-time. It is expected to attract more than 163 million television viewers, the largest American audience in history. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57367998/the-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell/}

Can hunting endangered animals save the species? Reported by Lara Logan. In Texas you can find some of the best big game hunting in the world, more than 250,000 animals (125 different species) from Asia, Africa and Europe -- more exotic wildlife than any other location. Fourth generation rancher and the executive director of the Exotic Wildlife Association Charly Seale's job is to represent the interests of some 5,000 exotic ranchers across North America; he states Texas has the most non-native species of animals. Began more than a century ago with surplus animals from zoos; ranchers liked the novelty of exotics on their properties, leading to a major achievement in wildlife conservation -- helping to return three African antelope (the scimitar horned oryx, the addax and the dama gazelle) from the brink of extinction, particularly in the last 15-25 years, according to Seale -- thriving in Texas, but still endangered in their native lands, their success brought about by trophy hunters. In Texas, thousands hunt exotic game annually, throughout the year, because they are considered private property. A scimitar horned oryx will cost $4,500; other animals, such as a dama gazelle, cost around $10,000; cape buffalo, the rarest, cost $50,000. In Texas, exotic wildlife has become a billion dollar industry, supporting more than 14,000 jobs. A hunter and his guide searched a 30,000 acre ranch just two hours outside San Antonio for an oryx, without success; he hunted at another ranch six months later -- states he cares about the species and that the money he spends to hunt them keeps the animals alive. He killed one with a single bullet, 150 yards away. Seale claims 10% or fewer of a herd is hunted per year and that "hunters are the main conservationists in this whole equation," and that he loves those animals despite the fact that they are bred for the sole intention of being killed, stating he can kill something he loves "for the simple reason that I know it's for the welfare of every one of those animals, you sacrifice one so that many more are born and raised from calves all the way up to the big trophy males/females...." Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals (an international animal rights organization) states she thinks it's immoral; for the past seven years, she's been fighting in court to stop these rare African antelope from being hunted in Texas. She further states: "I don't want to see them on hunting ranches....to see them dismembered...to see their value in body parts. I think it's obscene. I don't think you create a life to shoot it." Ms. Feral would rather they not exist in Texas. Seake states their biggest enemy is the animal rights people because they don't understand what the ranchers do, again claiming that if the animals weren't hunted they would become extinct. Texan rancher David Bamberger, 83, brought Ms. Logan to a small pasture on his 5,500 acre ranch (which he calls The Sahara) in Johnson City. He stated it was there that it began, having spent more than 30 years fighting to save the scimitar horned oryx (with horns that can grow as long as four feet, resembling the curved blade of a scimitar and thought by some to have inspired the myth of the unicorn). Bamberger stated that he's been told it's the only African antelope known to be able to kill a lion. The scimitar horned onyx became extinct decades ago from the deserts of Egypt, Senegal, Chad - all the places where they first walked the Earth more than two million years ago. Ms. Logan states that in the late 1970's, Bamberger offered to devote more than 600 acres of his property to save an endangered animal at his own expense. American zoos sent him nearly all of the remaining known genetic stock of scimitar horned oryx in the world and from that he raised hundreds of animals. He's since sent some to African reserves for eventual reintroduction into the wild, but he believes the best hope to sustain the species today lies on the Texas range. Bamberger claims he gave ranchers as few as six onyx and they currently have 200. Ms. Logan asks, "But if you're a conservationist, and you've given up your land, you've given up thousands, millions of dollars to save this species. Yet you're not against hunting them?" Bamberger replied tat he wouldn't hunt them there, that he is not fond of it, but that he is "wise enough, smart enough to know if there's no incentive, if altruism is the only incentive you're not gonna get a great deal of participation on someone whose livelihood depends on bringing in dollars." Ms. Logan interviewed one of the world's top
conservationists, Pat Condy, who lives in Texas, who stated that on different Texas ranches there are between 6,000-10,000 scimitar horned oryxes. He has devoted his life to saving animals and runs The Fossil Rim Wildlife Center outside of Dallas, a world leader in breeding rare and endangered animals and where tourists can visit such beautiful creatures. Condy agrees that the Texas ranches are saving animals from extinction because the number of animals are either stable or growing. However, Ms. Feral disagrees and has helped create a reserve in Senegal for 175 orxy. In court, she's winning the legal battle she's been fighting for years to stop them from being hunted in the U.S. [Until recently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had concluded that "hunting...Provides an economic incentive for...Ranchers to continue to breed these species," and that "hunting...Reduces the threat of the species' extinction," however, a new rule issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will take effect in the near future, making it a crime to hunt the scimitar horned oryx and two other endangered antelope without a federal permit that will be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain.] Seale argues that since the "announcement of that rule the value of those animals has probably dropped in half. You've got to understand, I'm a rancher to make a profit, just like any business...I will say that in five years you'll see half the numbers that you see today. And I would venture to guess in 10 years they'll be virtually none of 'em left." Ms. Feral wants the animals back in their native lands, on the reserve in Senegal. Condy states that if you set the aspect of hunting these exotic animals aside, "this resource of a species extinct in the wild will disappear now from Texas.... When asked who is winning the day, he concludes, " don't think anybody's winning the day. One thing is for sure, they are losing it. Those species are losing it." [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57368000/can-hunting-endangered-animals-save-the-species/?tag=contentMain;contentBody]

"Face the Nation" in one hour format in Florida

Donald Trump told Bob Schieffer that Trump may run if Republicans nominate someone who can't win.

Gingrich accepted Schieffer's invitation for a one-on-one but Romney declined. Gingrich talked about non-facts in a debate.
Gingrich alluded to a Lincoln quote on 2+2. Gingrich said Romney went into the debate willing to say things that were false.
In 1992, Romney voted for Paul Tsongas. Gingrich said: get the data and lay it out.

Schieffer pointed out Gingrich is behind Romney by 10 points in Miami Herald poll.

Schieffer then interviewed Michelle Bachmann. Schieffer asked if Romney was not a person of integrity and Bachmann noted she assumed the best of other people. She will back the Republican nominee. She wanted to be a unifying person in the party. Schieffer quoted Sarah Palin on the Repubican establishment. GOP cannibals are attacking Gingrich. Is it the Tea Party vs. the Establishment. The number one issue of the Tea Party is the spending and the debt.

Schieffer interviewed Donald Trump in Palm Beach. If he runs, Trump will run as an independent. Trump: it's very possible that they are hurting themselves.

Cover of Newsweek: Gincgrich and Romney as Roman warriors. Priebus interviewed. Talked about Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama in primary. Likened Obama to Captain Scattino. Our president is fleeing the American people. Talked about the 3am phone call. Worked for Hillary, but not for Republicans. Priebus said Palin tapped into a good point that people are angry. America wants a person who makes promises and keeps promises.

Schieffer mis-identified Florida's US Senator as Mario Rubio.

Schieffer said Florida is a microcosm of the rest of the country.

In the second thirty minutes, Schieffer started off with Allen West. Diaz-Balart is supporting Romney. West noted south Florida is ground zero for foreclosures. Equality of opportunity vs. equality of achievement. The government should not pick the winners and the losers. Schieffer: has the Tea Party made compromise a dirty word?

Romney is outspending Gingrich by 3 to 1. In the two debates, Gingrich lost his megaphone.

Schieffer ended talking about Kevin White. Judge me by the alternative. Obama: election is about fairness. Republicans: election is about Obama.

**IPBiz notes that, in the end, Face the Nation did not make good use of its additional 30 minutes. The "add ons", like the two segments with Trump, didn't contribute much in the way of significant content. Also, the interviewees dodged Schieffer's questions about what Gingrich was saying about Romney. Schieffer did not get traction.

CBS Sunday Morning on January 29, 2012

Charles Osgood presented the news, which started with the Florida primary. Romney leading in polls. Rick Santorum returned to PA to care for his daughter.

Martha Teichner did the cover story on "where" iPhones and the like come from.
Mike Daisey's Agony and Ecstasy of Steve Jobs on Broadway. FoxConn in Shenzhen. China. Workers who were 12, 13, and 14 years old. In 2010, suicides at Foxconn. There were nets around the buildings. Debbie Chan of organizaion in Hong Kong. SCOMM. Steve Colbert commented on non-suicide pledge. Steve Jobs said Foxconn is not a sweat shop. The pressure to produce. Mike Daisy said 12 hour shifts. Teichner asked Apple and Foxconn for comment; got directed to Impactt. Dionne Harrison. Hon Hai Precision Industry Company. Standards are aspirationional in nature. Ian Spaulding is consultant. On Jan. 13, Apple released list of suppliers. Limit to 60 hour/6 day week. New York Times articles produced Apple response. Apple has said it wants to be a leader. In 2012, virtually impossible to stop buying devices. The devices are put together by hand. Built from the bones of this labor.

Almanac. January 29, 1843. McKinley born in Niles, Ohio. Served in Antietam. Governor of Ohio. Edison filmed inaugural activities. PanAm Exposition in 1901. Died of his wounds 8 days later. Edison's cameras documented funeral procession. Was on $500 bill. High school in Glee.

Osgood said continue fashion forward lothing. Rita Braver on Tory Robinson Burch. Sophistiated but not too serious. Trademark bright colors. A fashion phenomenon in just 8 years. Luxury life style. Double T logo. Tory worked for Ralph Lauren and Vera Wang. Chris Burch financed her fashion line. Tunic. Gossip Girl gave her a cameo appearance. Sally Singer of NYT is a big fan of Tory. Glamour honored her. Won $164 million against fake internet providers of knockoffs. Divorced in 2006 from Chris Burch.

Starting with a clip from Taxi Driver CBS went to Scorcese. Lesley Stahl talks to Oscar nominee Martin Scorsese, director of “Hugo.” Georges Melies, magician. 1896-1913 did over 500 movies, and invented special effects. The invention of humor on film. By end of World War I, reduced to selling wind up toys. Stahl reviews 1996 "60 Minutes" profile. As a young boy, had asthma, and went to a lot of movies. Hugo: unable to join in, parallels to Scorcese's early life. Use 3D as a story telling element. Melies was inventing as he went along. Scorcese dislikes phones. Thelma Sconmaker has been editor for over 50 years. Francesca: I love Charlie Chaplin. Boardwalk Empire. Silence. Frank Sinatra Biopic.

Intorducing Rumer. Story by Anthony Mason. A voice as clear as a primary color. Seasons of my Soul. Burt Bacharach. Ruer played London pubs for a decade before getting a recording contract. "Number 22". Was told: you're not attractive enough. Was born Sara Joyce in Pakistan. Sisters are blonde. Her father was families Pakistani cook. Rumer went to northwest Pakistan. A world of "what if."

Travel & Leiasure did the rudest cities. New York, Miami, Washington DC, LA, Boston, Dallas, Atlanta.... Osgood said NYC not rude, but in a big hurry. I'd like to chat more but I'm busy ok (a poem in response to the survey).

The devil is in the details. "High Gear" by Seth Doane on mechanical toys. Something from the late 1700s. Automaton. Philadephia's Franklin Institute. At the time, trade secrets ruled. Brass disk cams. Maillarde was the designer. Brian Selznick, author. 500 page story of Hugo. The Invention of Hugo Cabret, turned into the movie Hugo. Jerry Rider at Morris Museum in New Jersey. Has over 100 automata. The Pig and the Peasant. Adult luxuries meant to be art in the home.

Brad Pitt in MoneyBall. Sunday Profile by Lee Cowan. With Angelina Jolie, define power couple. Moneyball died on the vine several times. Book by Michael Lewis. Book on redefing success. How do we place value on things. Moneyball got six Oscar nominations. Tree of Life also got nomination. Fight Club. Ocean's Thirteen. Twelve Monkeys. Benjamin Button. Want to do the opposite of what he was supposed to do. Part in Thelma and Louise. Getting a lot of pressure from their kids to get married. "We will some day." Nonprofit work in New Orleans lower ninth ward. Makeit Right Foundation. Final words: last man standing takes it all.

Jeff Greenfield on debates, Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. Just how demonstrative an audience do we want. Nixon-Kennedy debates were in tv studios. Gingrich pushed back hard against his questioners in SC debates. When debate is seen WITH audience reaction, different opinion. Gingrich insisted on audience response, but Romney benefitted. Be careful what you wish for.

Steve Hartman on middle of Kansas. Larry Hall condominium complex. Nuclear missile silo. Electronic windows. He has sold two of six units. "This old missile base."

Bob Schieffer in Miami. Down and dirtier than ever.

Next week on Sunday Morning. Just air tight.

Moment of nature. HandiHaler. Shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Fracking issues at Dimock, PA

Saturday Nightly News talked about the issues with water quality in Dimock, PA assertedly due to fracking.

From Bloomberg on 26 Jan 2012: Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. fired off a complaint to the Environmental Protection Agency, saying a probe of water in Dimock, Pennsylvania, undermines President Barack Obama's embrace of natural gas in his State of the Union speech.

See also Upstate Pa. Residents Affected by Fracking Protest at EPA Head’s Visit to Philadelphia

NBC raises issues with Romney campaign use of Brokaw news clip

A Romney Florida campaign ad shows then-NBC anchor Tom Brokaw saying that some of Gingrich's House colleagues had raised questions about the then-speaker's "future effectiveness."

A letter from NBC to the Romney campaign: "Aside from the obvious copyright issues, this use of the voice of Mr. Brokaw and the NBC News name exploits him and the journalistic credibility of NBC News,"

Brokaw noted he was "extremely uncomfortable with the extended use of my personal image in this political ad. I do not want my role as a journalist compromised for political gain by any campaign."

Friday, January 27, 2012

Rambus loses at BPAI

Reuters noted on 27 Jan 2012:

An appeals board at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [BPAI] declared the patent invalid on January 24, according to a ruling posted on their website. The previous two were declared invalid in September.

The invalidation is more bad news for Rambus, whose stock shed 60 percent of its value in the weeks after a November 16 court decision in which it lost a $4 billion antitrust lawsuit against Micron Technology Inc and Hynix Semiconductor Inc

The Barth patents had been used to accuse a long list of tech companies of infringement, earning Rambus millions of dollars in licensing fees through settlements.

Demi Moore and publicly available information

Of the release of the information from the 911 call of Demi Moore, News Briefs reported on Jan. 27

Though the LAFD was legally required to redact personal and medical information about Moore (her history, treatment Monday, phone number, gate code), when the media made a request for that public information, LAFD was legally required to release it. ”Everything we [released] is public record, so we have to give it to [journalists] according to the California Public Records Act,” Haro says.

The only exception, Haro says, would be if there were a pending criminal trial or legal issue. Then the courts (as opposed to Moore’s lawyers) could embargo the release. (As of press time, Haro was unaware of any attempt by Moore’s legal team to halt or follow up on the tape’s release, and Moore’s reps would not specifically comment on the 911 call or its release today.)

New Jersey has OPRA.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

GametimeIP rips Bessen

The post begins:

In September 2011, flawed research from a handful of Boston University professors made headlines with several highly popular news organizations claiming that patent owners were somehow responsible for a net loss of billions of dollars in wealth from corporate America.

The post is (in part) discussing Do nonpracticing entities benefit society by facilitating markets for technology? by James Bessen, JennifeR foRd, and michael J. meuReR.

"State of the Union" skipped biofuels?

A piece in Ethanol Producer Magazine begins:

President Barack Obama stressed the need for the nation to “double-down” on clean energy during his Jan. 24 State of the Union address, but neglected to include biofuels in his list of domestically available energy sources, even while noting that the U.S. relied less on foreign oil last year than in any of the past 16 years. Instead, the president announced a plan to open more areas for offshore oil and gas drilling and emphasized the importance of natural gas, wind, solar and high-tech battery production.

However, at blogs.scientificamerican one had the following emphasis on biofuels:

The U.S. military constitutes a huge market for alternative fuels. The Air Force alone burns 2.4 billion gallons of jet fuel a year. The Department of Defense burns $18 billion worth of oil a year, four fifths of the federal governments’ energy tab.

In truth, a shift within the U.S. military to green fuels has been under way for more than a year. The U.S. Navy has been purchasing jet fuel derived from camelina—a derivative of canola—and a diesel like fuel derived from algae for its ships. The U.S. Air Force in 2010 began testing camelina oil in place of petroleum in its fuels as part of a program to derive as much as half of its fuel from alternative sources by 2016.

BUT implicitly acknowledged the absence of biofuels in the following:

I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy,” Obama said during his State of the Union address. ” I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.”

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

“A beloved, but somewhat expected brand.”

Finance.yahoo talks about problems at Olive Garden.

Within the article:

Darden president and chief operating officer Drew Madsen commented that Olive Garden has become “a beloved, but somewhat expected brand.”

The question is: What will the restaurant do to change its course? Short answer: A lot. Olive Garden plans to switch up the menu with healthier, low-cost choices.

CSI: Marg's final episode on Jan. 25, 2012

Marg ends up shot, staying in "room 12." Gets her wound cauterized with a curling iron, but then leaves, with Russell.

Marg gets into a strip club run by Teddy, under the name "Goldilocks." Marg described her past "working the pole." Jimmy Tedero saw Marg as more than just a pretty face. Marg became a CSI talking to Jimmy at the strip club.

In the past episode, Laura Gabriel survived, but not so lucky in the beginning of this one. [She didn't really die, but gets to go to prison!]

Russell figured out that Marg's resignation letter was a fake. It had text: "I have to do something. I have one last bit of unfinished business." The plot of the bad guys: "Marg goes postal and kills Mark Gabriel."

Russell plans the escape from the strip club, in two body bags, one extra long.

Occam's Razor comes up, from Sara.

How was Laura Gabriel identified? Were the initially used exemplars faked? A gory scene taking bone marrow from a crispy corpse. James McQuade's body was really Jeffrey Kruger.

So, in reality, James McQuade of the FBI conspired with Laura Gabriel to incriminate Mark Gabriel. The police tip off Mark: Laura set "your own dogs on you."

41 Fern Ridge Road in Las Vegas.

Did McQuade try to save Marg? He saw in Marg, what he used to be. Someone with integrity. The FBI offers Marg a job.

Marg asks: "why me?" When we were kids, you always went for the guy who needed you. Laura: I take what I want. You would rather accept the life you have than get the life you want.
Marg said: when you chose me, you should have known it would turn out like this.

Everyone gets a message: "Family meeting called." (by Marg)

I wanted to say "how brilliant" I think you all are. Marg refers to the few changes made a few months ago. I was wrong when I said it's been a long 19 years. But, there comes a point, when one feels compelled to make a change. I've been offerred a job by the FBI. You are a bad assed team of criminalists.

Even though you're leaving you will always be hear with us.

King Kong on cocaine.

The last scene is with Marg's daughter.

IPBiz disagrees with Patently-O about Kent State decision of CAFC

On January 24, Patently-O wrote about the Kent State case of the CAFC with the following text:

Comment: The court was also careful to limit its holding in another way. It could have concluded that Falana was inventor simply due to his contribution to the method used to make Compound 9. It did not. Instead, the panel held "that a putative inventor who envisioned the structure of a novel genus of chemical compounds and contributes the method of making that genus contributes to the conception of that genus." Id. at 15 (emphasis added). It was able to articulate the rule in this way because it agreed with the district court that the patent's independent claims do not include a temperature independence limitation - in other words, the claims as construed were not limited to Compound 9, but rather encompassed the genus of compounds produced using Falana's synthesis protocol. Falana thus contributed both to the method of making the genus as well as the structure of the genus itself. The opinion implies that the outcome could conceivably be different if the claims had been limited to Compound 9. See, e.g., Slip Op. at 17.

The opinion at page 17 states the following:

Although the Defendants argue that Falana did not contribute to the conception of Compound 9 because Compound 9 was first synthesized after Falana left the team, this argument is inapposite. The claims of the ’789 Patent are not limited to Compound 9. Instead, they claim a subset of the entire genus of naphthyl substituted TADDOLs—those which are RR enantiomers. Falana contributed to the conception of this genus by providing the team of which he was a part with the method for making these novel compounds. Falana’s lack of contribution to the discovery of Compound 9 itself does not negate his contribution of the method used by the other inventors to make the genus of compounds covered by the claims at issue.

The district court did not err in concluding that Falana’s contribution of the method used by the team of which he was a part for making the claimed compounds was enough of a contribution to conception to pass the threshold required for joint inventorship. We therefore affirm the district court’s determination.

IPBiz disagrees with the assertion --The opinion implies that the outcome could conceivably be different if the claims had been limited to Compound 9. -- IPBiz says the CAFC would say Falana was a co-inventor to a claim limited to compound 9 BECAUSE of his contribution to the method of making the genus of which compound 9 is a member. Falana contributed to conception of compound 9 by providing a way of implementing (synthesizing) compound 9. There was no disclosure in the specification of any method, other than Falana's, to make compound 9. It is separately correct that the opinion at page 17 does NOT imply
-- the outcome could conceivably be different if the claims had been limited to Compound 9 --

Falana's argument had appeared on page 13:

Falana responds that he was the one who developed the Synthesis Protocol, which made it possible to make a previously-unknown genus of compounds, to wit, naphthyl substituted TADDOLs. This was the method used by Falana to synthesize Compound 7, the method used by Seed to synthesize Compound 9, and the only method disclosed in the ’789 Patent for making the claimed compounds. Finally, Falana contends that because he contributed the method of making the novel class of compounds claimed in the ’789 Patent, his contribution to conception was sufficient to make him a joint inventor.

See also IPBiz post on 23 January 2012 Kent State University loses in Falana case

the text of the decision

**Some further commentary at Patently-O

OL said...
I must be missing something but this opinion is confusing me and seems internally inconsistent or at least incomplete. It says at page 17:

"Although the Defendants argue that Falana did not contribute to the conception of Compound 9 because Compound 9 was first synthesized after Falana left the team, this argument is inapposite. The claims of the ’789 Patent are not limited to Compound 9. Instead, they claim a subset of the entire genus of naphthyl substituted TADDOLs—those which are RR enantiomers. Falana contributed to the conception of this genus by providing the team of which he was a part with the method for making these novel compounds."

So, if a claim was limited only to Compound 9, the opinion seems to suggest that Falana would not be a joint inventor because compound 9 was discovered after Falana left EVEN THOUGH Falana still contributed the method to make compound 9.

The opinion in the above passage then suggests that the actual claimed subject matter includes more than compound 9 and includes the entire sub-genus of RR enantiomers. It is clear Falana conceived and reduced to practice one embodiment of the larger genus that includes both RR and SS enantiomers but there is nothing highlighting that Falana himself conceived and reduced to practice a RR enantiomer. The closest we get is a statement on page 4 that "Falana’s Synthesis Protocol could be used, and was used, to synthesize both RR and SS enantiomers." If Falana himself synthesized RR enantiomers that fell within the claims then Falana is clearly a joint inventor of the sub genus (ie those limited to RR enantiomers) or maybe even if the RR enantiomers were made by others on the team while Falana was still there then Falana was a joint inventor of the RR sub genus.

But if the RR enantiomers were made by others using Falana's method only after he left then the RR subgenus looks just like a claim to compound 9 and the opinion implies that compound 9 itself would not by jointly invented. If this analysis is sound then I am confused why the opinion does not tell us when the first RR enantiomers were made using the method. And if the timing of the first synthesis of the sub genus of RR enantiomers is not relevant then why did the opinion imply that it would be relevant for a claim limited to compound 9?

Reply Jan 25, 2012 at 04:15 PM
IANAE said in reply to OL...
So, if a claim was limited only to Compound 9, the opinion seems to suggest that Falana would not be a joint inventor because compound 9 was discovered after Falana left EVEN THOUGH Falana still contributed the method to make compound 9.

That's a questionable interpretation of what is essentially dicta anyway. The court was rejecting all arguments based on who didn't invent Compound 9 because the claim was not limited to Compound 9. Had the claim been so limited, they would have considered the argument, but they don't commit to whether it's a winner.

What really surprises me is that there's no specific finding of whether Compound 7 falls within the claim.

But if the RR enantiomers were made by others using Falana's method only after he left then the RR subgenus looks just like a claim to compound 9 and the opinion implies that compound 9 itself would not by jointly invented.

What if the RR enantiomers were made by others using Falana's method after Falana left the room? Same answer?

When multiple inventors are named on a patent, it's not usually because they all thought of claim 1 at the same time or they were all in the room when the new material was created. That's not the only way to make an inventive contribution.

Reply Jan 25, 2012 at 04:28 PM

The above comments really miss the point of what the CAFC was saying. Falana himself didn't make compound 9 AND he didn't make any compound within the scope of the claim. That is irrelevant to the point of conception: an idea AND a way of implementing it. Only Falana provided a way of making the compounds in the claim. He is a co-inventor for that reason.
He would be a co-inventor of a claim only to compound 9. The CAFC did not say, or suggest, otherwise.

CAFC remands part of Roche/Nova case; Roche wins remainder of appeal issues

GRANTLAND G. DRUTCHAS won a vacate and remand for appellant-plaintiff Roche in the case against Lifescan and Nova. The key element of the conclusion of the decision: We vacate the judgment of non-infringement, however, and remand to the district court to consider the parties’ arguments that pertain to the scope of the term “electrode.” The patents in suit generally aim to facilitate faster measurements (compared to the prior art) of glucose concentrations in small blood samples.

Here, as to "electrode," the CAFC noted:

Claim construction is a question of law, and thus we review de novo a district court’s claim construction. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454–55 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Nonetheless, this court is a court of appellate jurisdiction, and “[n]o matter how independent an appellate court’s review of an issue may be, it is still no more than that—a review.” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bancorp Servs., LLC, 527 F.3d 1330, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (declining to consider a claim construction issue that the district court did not “expressly” address and remanding to the district court for further proceedings). The procedural posture of this case, however, deprives us of the district court’s resolu- tion (and illumination) of the issues that are raised with respect to the construction of the term “electrode.” Roche raised its current claim construction argument to the district court in a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. The district court did not address whether reconsideration was procedurally appropriate, and, if so, whether Roche’s argument has merit. Nova and Lifescan do not dispute on appeal, however, that Roche’s argument should be addressed on the merits. Thus, in effect, we are called on to address the substance of a claim construction issue that has never been consid- ered by the district court. We do not opine, as a general matter, whether and under what circumstances this court may address new claim construction arguments on appeal if urged to do so by the parties. As we explain below, however, the specific nature of this case makes it impru- dent for us to address Roche’s claim construction argument for the first time on appeal.

Why construction of the term electrode was important:

the judgment of non- infringement was entered solely on the basis that the term “electrode” in the asserted claims does not cover electrodes that are wider than approximately 100 μm.

The evidence:

For example, the specification of the ’146 patent states,
Preferred dimensions for micro-electrodes can be, e.g., feature size or width of elec- trodes . . . in the range from 15 or 20 or 25 μm, up to about 100 μm, more preferably from greater than or about 25 or 30 μm to about 50 μm.
’146 patent col.3 ll.9-13; see also ’147 patent col.3, ll.9-12.

Roche counters (rather persuasively, in our view) that this statement, like other similar statements in the specification, is merely a non-limiting description of a preferred embodiment of the claimed invention.

As to "electrode," the CAFC sends the case back to district court:

In sum, we decline to address the claim construction issue raised by Roche because it has never been addressed by the district court. Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for the purpose of construing the term “electrode” and any subsequent proceeding that might be necessary once the court construes that term.

Nova got no traction on its assertions:

We also affirm the district court’s resolution of Nova’s non-patent counterclaims, as well as the jury’s ultimate verdict of no-liability in Roche’s favor.

First, Nova argues that the district court erred in finding that a Swiss choice of law provision in the Agreement barred Nova’s trade secret misappropriation and conversion counterclaims. We disagree. The choice of law provision unambiguously provides that the parties’ relationships under the Agree- ment “shall be governed in all respects by the laws of Switzerland.” (...)
Since there is no dispute that Swiss law does not recognize Nova’s trade secret misappropriation and conversion counterclaims, the district court did not err in rejecting those claims as a matter of law.

Second, Nova argues that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing Nova to disclose to the jury that Roche had sued Nova for infringement and lost. We disagree. The district court was well within its discretion to find that the probative value of disclosing the in- fringement suit to the jury was substantially outweighed by the risk of prejudice or waste of time. See Fed. R. Evid. 403; United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 767 (3d Cir. 1978) (noting that when reviewing a district court’s Rule 403 analysis, an appellate court ought to be highly defer- ential). We see no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary ruling.

It is true that Nova’s evidence shows that Roche’s executive, who had learned of Nova’s technology, discussed some aspects of Nova’s invention with Roche’s inventors. It is also true that the evidence shows that Roche decided to patent its invention almost immediately after learning of Nova’s test-strips, even though Roche claims that it had invented the tech- nology long before. Nonetheless, we must review the record in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, and we cannot disturb the verdict unless we determine that “’there is insufficient evidence from which a jury reasonably could find’” for Roche. Cordance Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 658 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp., 4 F.3d 1153, 1166 (3d Cir. 1993)). Nova’s counterclaims are based on circumstantial evidence, and the jury heard testimony from both sides on the events that transpired during and after negotiations between Nova and Roche. We have reviewed the evidence that the parties presented to the jury, and we hold that it was within the jury’s purview to find that Roche was not liable. We thus affirm the jury’s verdict in Roche’s favor.

Gevo sues DuPont, Butamax for patent infringement

Bloomberg reports that Gevo Inc. sued DuPont Co. and its business partner Butamax Advanced Biofuels in federal court in Delaware [12-cv-70 ] alleging infringement of a new patent for alcohol fermentation processes.

On January 24, 2012, Gevo obtained US 8,101,808, with first claim:

A method to recover a C3-C6 alcohol from a fermentation broth comprising microorganisms and the C3-C6 alcohol, comprising: a. increasing the activity of the C3-C6 alcohol in a portion of the fermentation broth to at least that of saturation of the C3-C6 alcohol in the portion; b. forming a C3-C6 alcohol-rich liquid phase and a water-rich liquid phase from the portion of the fermentation broth; and c. separating the C3-C6 alcohol-rich phase from the water-rich phase.

One week earlier, on January 17, 2012, Gevo obtained US 8,097,440 .

Journal publications in the blue LED "droop" area

Within a story titled -- The LED's Dark Secret -- in IEEE Spectrum, one finds some allusions to difficulties in publishing science papers:

As to droop, the loss of LED efficiency at high power:

Another theory [for droop] was proposed as far back as 1996 by Nakamura. He argued that everything could be explained by the structure of the quantum well. Nakamura and his colleagues looked at LEDs with a transmission electron microscope and were surprised to find light and dark areas within the quantum well, suggesting that the material there was not uniform. They then investigated the crystalline structure more closely, using X-ray diffraction, and found that the quantum well had indium-rich clusters (bright) next to indium-poor areas (dark).
Nakamura conjectured that because the indium clusters were free from defects, the electrons and holes would be trapped in them, making bright emission possible, at least at low currents. Continuing with this line of reasoning, Nakamura’s team argued that LEDs’ high efficiency at low currents stemmed from a very high proportion of electron-hole recombination in defect-free clusters. At higher currents, however, these clusters would become saturated, and any additional charge carriers would spill over into regions having defects dense enough to kill light emission. The saturation at high current, they suggested, accounted for the observed droop.
This theory has fallen out of favor in recent years.

In 2003, Humphreys presented that jaw-dropping finding at the Fifth International Conference on Nitride Semiconductors, in Nara, Japan. It wasn’t well received. Many delegates contended that something must have gone wrong with the Cambridge samples. So Humphreys’s group went back and studied a wider variety of specimens, including LEDs supplied by Nichia. Their work only reinforced their view that the clusters were formed by electron-beam damage.
In 2007, Humphreys’s Cambridge team, together with researchers at the University of Oxford, described how they had attacked the problem with what’s known as a three-dimensional atom probe. This device applies a high voltage that evaporates atoms on a surface, then sends them individually through a mass spectroscope, which identifies each one by its charge-to-mass ratio. By evaporating one layer after the other and putting all the data together, you can render a 3-D image of the surface with atomic precision.
The resulting images confirmed, again, what the electron microscope had shown: There is no clustering. Discrediting the cluster theory was an important step, even though it left the research community without an alternative explanation for droop.
Then, on 13 February 2007, the California-based LED manufacturing giant Philips Lumileds Lighting Co. made the stunning claim that it had ”fundamentally solved” the problem of droop. It even said that it would soon include its droop-abating technology in samples of its flagship Luxeon LEDs.
Lumileds kept the cause of droop under wraps for several months. Then, at the meeting of the International Conference of Nitride Semiconductors, held September 2007 in Las Vegas, it presented a paper putting the blame on Auger recombination—a process, named after the 20th-century French physicist Pierre-Victor Auger, that involves the interaction of an electron and a hole with another carrier, all without the emission of light.

**Of publication of this work:

The idea was pretty radical, and it has had a mixed reception. Applied Physics Letters published Lumileds’ paper only after repeated rejections and revisions. ”In my experience, it was one of the most difficult papers to get out there,” says Mike Krames, director of the company’s Advanced Laboratories.

**Of criticism of the Philips work:

”All [Lumileds] showed was that they can fit the results with a dependence that is like Auger,” claims Hader. ”It’s a fairly weak argument to see a fit that fits, and see what might correspond to that fitting.” In his view, there’s a good chance that the Lumileds data could also be fitted with other density dependencies, as well as the cubed dependence that is classically associated with Auger recombination.

The first Philips Auger paper was: “Auger Recombination in InGaN Measured by Photoluminescence,” by Y. C. Shen, G. O. Mueller, S. Watanabe, N. F. Gardner, A. Munkholm, and M. R. Krames, Applied Physics Letters 91 141101, 1 October 2007,

One notes US 20070262342 (filed May 15, 2006 ; published November 15, 2007 ) titled P-Type Layer For A III-Nitride Light Emitting Device.

As historical background:

The first-ever report of light emission from a semiconductor was by the British radio engineer Henry Joseph Round, who noted a yellowish glow emanating from silicon carbide in 1907. However, the first devices at all similar to today’s LEDs arrived only in the 1950s, at Signal Corps Engineering Laboratories, at Fort Monmouth, in New Jersey. Researchers there fabricated orange-emitting devices; green, red, and yellow equivalents followed in the ’60s and ’70s, all of them quite inefficient.
The great leap toward general lighting came in the mid-1990s, when Shuji Nakamura, then at Nichia Corp., in Tokushima, Japan, developed the first practical bright-blue LED using nitride-based compound semiconductors. (Nakamura’s achievement won him the 2006 Millennium Technology Prize, the approximate equivalent in engineering of a Nobel Prize.) Once you’ve got blue light, you can get white by passing the blue rays through a yellow phosphor. The phosphor absorbs some of the blue and reradiates it as yellow; the combination of blue and yellow makes white.

**Note the reference to the Readers Digest article predicting LEDs for lighting in LBE's 8 JMRIPL 80 (2008)

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

A special episode of the Advanced Biofuels Association's Better Fuels Moment online video series.

The piece includes Joel Velasco, senior vice president of Amyris; Jack Huttner, executive vice president, commercial and public affairs of Gevo; and Michael McAdams, president of the Advanced Biofuels Association, ABFA.

Recycled episode on NCIS on 24 Jan 2012, The Penelope Papers

Viewers get to see Lily Tomlin (again; first shown 4 Oct 2011, "The Penelope Papers") in her role as McGee's grandmother, Penelope Langston.

During the 1960's Penelope worked for the Tellus Group on the Annex Principle, a bioengineering project resulting in her involvement in a murder investigation.

Penelope encourages McGee to call his father, which he does. The show's last line: "It's me, Tim."

The show also presents a carbon fiber gun, dating from the Viet Nam War era.

Dow prevails in CAFC appeal brought by Nova Chemicals

The appellants were represented by DONALD R. DUNNER, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, of Washington, DC. The bottom line, written by Judge Prost: Because we see no error in the district court’s standing and invalidity analyses, and because substantial evidence supports the jury’s infringement finding, we affirm. Appellants lose.

At issue in the appeal:

Nova makes three main arguments on appeal. First, it argues that Dow lacks standing to enforce the patents in suit. Second, it argues that the patents in suit are invalid for indefiniteness and lack of an adequate written description. Third, it argues that the jury’s verdict of infringement is not supported by substantial evidence.

Of the standing issue:

Effective on January 1, 2002, however, Dow and its holding company, Dow Global Technologies, Inc. (“DGTI”) entered into a “Contribution Agreement” (or “the agreement”) according to which a large share of Dow’s intellectual property rights was transferred to DGTI. Apparently, the Contribution Agreement was intended to generate certain tax benefits for Dow. Nova argues that the patents in suit were among the intellectual property rights that were transferred to DGTI under the Contribution Agreement. As a result, according to Nova, Dow does not have stand ing to enforce the patents in suit. Cf. Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., Inc., 939 F.2d 1574, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

One notes that Dow prevailed on this issue because of the lack of evidence that the asserted patents had been transferred to DGTI:

After holding a bench trial, the district court determined that the patents in suit were never transferred to DGTI. In particular, the court found that the Contribution Agreement was unambiguous in that it incorporated a document—entitled Schedule A—that contained a list of all the patents that were transferred to DGTI. The court heard and credited testimony from a Dow employee who was in charge of preparing and maintaining Schedule A, and she corroborated Dow’s assertion that the patents in suit never appeared in Schedule A. Based on these findings, the court found that Dow had met its burden of establishing the ownership of the patents in suit. And, because the court found that the clear terms of the agreement controlled, it declined to evaluate the extrinsic evidence that Nova suggested defeated Dow’s standing. The court accordingly denied Nova’s request to dismiss the suit for lack of standing. For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the district court’s determinations.

The dissent by Judge Reyna began:

This patent infringement case involves a substantial question of standing based on an agreement relating to the ownership of the patents-in-suit. In order to achieve certain tax and business benefits, Dow transferred essentially its entire patent portfolio to its holding company pursuant to an agreement entered into in 2002. Dow sued Nova in 2005 for infringement of the patents-in-suit, which were ostensibly transferred to Dow’s holding company under the 2002 agreement. The 2002 agreement and related documents, however, were not produced in litigation by Dow until July 2009, well after discovery had closed. After reviewing the documents, Nova moved to dismiss the case on grounds that Dow lacked standing because it was not the owner of the patents-in-suit when the lawsuit was initiated. The district court opted not to have a hearing on the standing issue until after a jury trial and verdict on the merits of the infringement and invalidity claims. Ultimately, the district court found that the patents-in-suit had never been transferred by Dow to its holding company via the 2002 agreement and, concluding that Dow therefore had standing, entered final judgment on the verdict against Nova.
Because I conclude that the 2002 agreement in fact did transfer the patents-in-suit to Dow’s holding company, and that standing did not exist at the time the complaint was filed, I would reverse the district court and dismiss the case without prejudice. I would not reach the underlying merits of the judgment that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were valid and infringed. I respectfully dissent.