Sunday, February 28, 2021

Getting a scheduled Covid appointment in New Jersey, as of the end of February 2021

The Courier News still mentions CVS as a place to get a Covid vaccination (as of 28 Feb 2021).

If one goes to the CVS site [ ], on Feb. 28, one obtains:

The Courier News on February 28, 2021:

Thus, not an internet "navigation" problem, but rather a supply problem. One cannot find what isn't there.

BUT, says something else:

Saturday, February 27, 2021

Does the State of New Jersey need new computers for covid vaccination registration, or more thought?

A guest article by Anthony Bucco in the February 27, 2021 issue of the Newark Star-Ledger illustrates how under-equipped and under-manned the State of New Jersey was to handle the computer aspect of the unemployment and vaccination tasks asked of New Jersey in the Covid crisis.

The Department of Labor has been handling unemployment claims badly since before the crisis. Even certified letters go unanwered. The State of New Jersey covid website handles only a minority of the places nominally having Covid vaccine. Even at that, the state website told Somerset County residents that they were not Somerset County residents, and therefore were not eligible to get a vaccination at RVCC.

A different, less critical, story comes out of attorney registration, which nominally had a deadline of February 26, 2021. Some screenshots tell the story. Attorneys are duly notified of the need to file by February 26 AND given a contact email if difficulties arise

This is the final week to timely complete the required annual attorney registration and paymentonline. The 2021 deadline for registration and payment is Friday, February 26, 2021. Registrations completed afterFriday, February 26, 2021 will be subject to late fees and assessment charges.

Please contact the Superior Court Clerk's Office by phone at 609-421-6100 or by email at with any questions related to this message.

[one notes that spelling is not a strong point]

If one naively sent an email request for assistance (as per the incoming email), one obtained the following automated message:

***THIS IS AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE*** Thank you for your inquiry to the Superior Court Clerk’s Office. The Superior Court Clerk’s Office is no longer reviewing record requests submitted by email. Pursuant to Supreme Court Order, documents or requests filed with the Court must be submitted electronically through the Judiciary Electronic Document Submission (JEDS) application or eCourts by attorneys. Please visit to learn more about JEDS and eCourts. For technical support, please emails the Superior Court Clerk’s Office at ******PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING RECORDS ARE NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT CLERK'S OFFICE ****** ·Transcripts ·Criminal records ·Municipal records ·Most special Civil Part records (DC, SC, LT dockets) ·For these records, please contact the County or Municipal Courthouse for further instruction. Should you have any questions, please contact the Superior Court Clerk’s Office at 609-421-6100 or refer to our web page at Thank you. Superior Court Clerk’s Office 25 Market Street 6N P.O. Box 971 Trenton, NJ 08625 609-421-6100

When one gets through on the 6100 number (about a 30 minute wait), one is told to switch browsers from Chrome to Edge.

Returning to the Bucco article, one suspects there is more needed than just newer computers.

Friday, February 26, 2021

New Jersey Covid registration system that "their older less tech-savvy relatives cannot navigate"?

The Courier-News portrays the problem as one of bumbling old people not able to handle the various Covid vaccination registration systems in New Jersey. The reality is that even the Woz (over age 70) could not get an appointment upon completely filling out the state registration system, mainly because there is little vaccine to go around.

See also, which gives the URL for the CVS site as a place to get a Covid vaccination. Unless the Woz has figured out a way to make an mRNA vaccine, his computer expertise would be wasted on this site.
As to CVS:

Who owns the rights to the likeness of a television character?

Concerning the proposed statue of Barney Fife (played by Don Knotts) in Mt. Airy, NC:

Work on the statue was halted after Paramount/CBS, which owns the rights to the TV show, withdrew its approval, saying it didn't have the authority to grant permission for a likeness of Knotts. Knotts' widow, Francey, and Griffith, supported a statue, but said if the monument were in Knotts' hometown of Morgantown, W.Va., it should be of Knotts, not of Fife.


Cross-reference: Tom Hellebrand

Thursday, February 25, 2021

CAFC vacates Board decision in SYNQOR, INC. v. VICOR CORPORATION

The outcome:

SynQor, Inc. appeals the inter partes reexamination decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding unpatentable as obvious original claims 1–19, 28, and 31 of SynQor’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,072,190, as well as newly presented claims 34–38, which were proposed during the reexamination proceeding. Because decisions the Board made in previous reexamination proceedings preclude finding claims 1–19, 28, and 31 obvious based on the grounds relied upon by the Board, we vacate the Board’s decision as to those claims. And because the expiration of the ’190 patent renders any appeal of the Board’s decision regarding claims 34–38 moot, we also vacate the Board’s decision as to those claims.

Of relevance to this case is the drawn out history:

The ’190 patent has a lengthy litigation history with multiple board decisions and appeals in this court. Only the portions relevant to this appeal are recited here

The issues:

SynQor makes four arguments on appeal. First, SynQor argues that common law issue preclusion arising from the ’702 and ’290 patent reexaminations should have collaterally estopped the Board from finding that an artisan would be motivated to combine Steigerwald and Cobos.1 Second, SynQor argues that the Board’s findings on the frequency (in)compatibility in the ’190 patent reexamination exhibit inadequately explained inconsistencies with the ’290 patent reexamination decision and within the two decisions issued in the ’190 patent reexamination, requiring vacatur under principles of administrative law. Third, SynQor argues that an additional obviousness ground under which the Board found claims 2–4 obvious, combining Steigerwald, Cobos, and a third reference, lacked substantial evidence that an artisan would combine Steigerwald with the third reference. Finally, SynQor argues that its appeal of the Board’s decision on newly presented claims 34–38 became moot through the happenstance of patent expiration, so the Board’s decisions regarding those claims should therefore be vacated

footnote 1: Vicor argues that SynQor forfeited its issue preclusion argument by not raising it before the Board despite having the opportunity to do so. Appellee’s Br. 30. But SynQor could not have raised issue preclusion because neither the ’702 nor ’290 patent reexaminations became final until after the Board’s decision regarding claims 1–19, 28, and 31. “[I]ssue preclusion applies even though the precluding judgment . . . comes into existence while the case as to which preclusion is sought (this case) is on appeal.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. CF CRESPE LLC, 880 F.3d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Mgmt., LLC, 778 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).

As to issue preclusion:

“[T]he determination of a question directly involved in one action is conclusive as to that question in a second suit.” B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138, 147 (2015) (quoting Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 354 (1877)). “It is well established that collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, applies in the administrative context.” MaxLinear, Inc., 880 F.3d at 1376. In fact, “because the principle of issue preclusion was so ‘well established’ at common law, in those situations in which Congress has authorized agencies to resolve disputes, ‘courts may take it as given that Congress has legislated with the expectation that the principle [of issue preclusion] will apply ‘except when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.’” B & B Hardware, 575 U.S. at 148 (quoting Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104, 108 (1991))

Thus, administrative decisions have preclusive effect “[w]hen an administrative agency is acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate.” B & B Hardware, 575 U.S. at 148–49 (quoting Univ. of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 797–98 (1986)). “Although administrative estoppel is favored as a matter of general policy, its suitability may vary according to the specific context of the rights at stake, the power of the agency, and the relative adequacy of agency procedures.” Astoria, 501 U.S. at 109–10.

[As a small diversion, this issue arose in a comment by Josh Escovedo in a Weintraub CLE on Feb. 25, 2021.]

New COVID strains in New Jersey

A front page {over the fold} article in the February 25, 2021 issue of the Newark-Star Ledger is titled "On the trail of dangerous strains in N.J."

The article says this of the "U.K. variant" of Covid:

British scientists are now saying that the U.K. variant, called B.1.1.7, is likely hospitalizing and killing people at a higher rate than the dominant strain of the virus.

The Star-Ledger article makes no mention of the California variant. On Tuesday, February 23, 2021, the Los Angeles Times published a story titled California's coronavirus strain looks increasingly dangerous: 'The devil is already here', which included the text

A coronavirus variant that probably emerged in May and surged to become the dominant strain in California not only spreads more readily than its predecessors but also evades antibodies generated by COVID-19 vaccines or prior infection and is associated with severe illness and death, researchers said.
Ominously, the new study also suggested the California variant could have the added impact of greater virulence. That observation is based on the medical charts of 324 patients hospitalized at UCSF, a relatively small sample. Still, the researchers found that the 21% of these patients who contracted B.1.427/B.1.429 were more likely than their counterparts to have been admitted to the ICU, and they were 11 times more likely to die. That finding held up even after researchers adjusted for differences in the patients' age, gender and ethnicity.

Wednesday, February 24, 2021

Covid vaccinations in New Jersey generally, and in Somerset County specifically

In the story in the Patch titled The Quest To COVID Vaccinate My Baby Boomer Parents In New Jersey , Russ Crespolini mentions that the Somerset County covid vaccination program is open to all Somerset County residents (true) and those working in Somerset County (but not residents, likely not true). He directed readers to the Somerset County vaccination website.

In fact, Somerset County handles its vaccination registration program through the state hub. Somerset County merely states

The COVID-19 Hotline -- (908) 231-7155 -- is for questions and assistance only. We cannot provide vaccination appointments with this line. For appointments, visit or call (855) 568-0545. Somerset County will be participating in the distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations throughout the next six months, with the rollout going initially to the CDC’s Phase 1 categories of health care staff, first responders, essential workers, and vulnerable populations Following Phase 1, vaccinations will be rolled out to the general public, as well. Any New Jersey resident or worker interested in receiving a vaccine in those categories or in the general population should register at to be notified when they will be eligible to attend a vaccination clinic during the roll-out. Pre-registration does not include an appointment, but an interest in being vaccinated. Once pre-registered, appointments will be sent based on your priority group and eligibility to receive vaccine. The length of Phase 1 and the timing of Phase 2 vaccinations for the general public will be determined by the number of vaccination requests and the availability of vaccine, but anyone can pre-register immediately.

Notice that the Somerset County website does NOT say ONLY county residents eligible. But is does not say who is eligible at the Somerset County vaccination center.

When one registers with the state of New Jersey, one is told one is registered to wait for an appointment. One does NOT get information as to WHERE to get a vaccination or WHEN a vaccination appointment will be available.

UPDATE on 25 Feb 2021: IPBiz contacted people who were in the category "work in Somerset but don't live in Somerset," who phoned the Somerset County Health phone line (908-231-7155). The answer: They confirmed that only Somerset County residents are eligible for RVCC shots. Thus, the Patch article is inaccurate in suggesting those that "work" in Somerset County (but don't live there) can get shots at RVCC.

From the Patch:

Friday, February 19, 2021

CAFC tackles intervening rights in JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES

The outcome:

This appeal is from a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas that, on remand from this court, granted-in-part Morris & Associates, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment as to equitable intervening rights, denied-in-part its motion as to prosecution laches, and dismissed the case. John Bean appeals the district court decision as to equitable intervening rights and Morris cross-appeals the decision as to prosecution laches. For the following reasons, we affirm the district court’s decision. (...)

The district court found that Morris made “substantial preparation” before the USPTO issued the reexamination certificate based on Morris’s “years of research, developments, investments, improvement, promotion, and goodwill associated with the accused product” and Morris’s conversion of “nearly [two-thirds] of its business to selling the accused product.” Id. at *2. The district court found that while Morris had made profits sufficient to recoup its investment due to a long period of sales, requiring “a company to eliminate [two-thirds] of its business because a patent holder, after, a decade, decided to seek reexamination and enforce the patent is inequitable.” Id. at *3. (...)

We turn to the question of whether the district court abused its discretion in its application of the equitable intervening rights doctrine. This court has previously determined that “once the doctrine of intervening rights is properly raised, the court must consider whether to use its broad equity powers to fashion an appropriate remedy.” Seattle Box II, 756 F.2d at 1579. This court also held that “the second sentence of the second paragraph in 35 U.S.C. § 252 was to be applied in that case in accordance with equity.”2 Id. In cases involving equitable remedies and equitable defenses, the discretion of the court permits “decisions that are flexible, intuitive, and tailored to the particular case.”3
See e.g., Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc., 165 F.3d 891, 895 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Monsanto Co. v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 784 F.3d 1189, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It permits a “judge’s discretion to see justice done in individual cases, by remedying the imperfect fit between the rules of law and the facts of the world.”4 John Bean argues that this court should deem monetary recoupment of investments made prior to the grant of reissue as sufficient to protect investments and defeat the grant of the equitable remedy. We disagree.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

Takeda prevails at CAFC in case about alogliptin, a uracil-containing DPP-IV inhibitor useful for treating type II diabetes,

The outcome of the Takeda case was that appellants (Torrent et al.) lost :

Torrent and Indoco (collectively, Appellants) appeal from the district court’s final judgment on Appellants’ invalidity challenges to claims 4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,807,689, owned by Takeda.1 See Takeda Pharm. Co. Ltd. v. Torrent Pharm. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-03186-SRC-CLW, 2020 WL 549594, at *26 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2020) (Takeda). The claims at issue are directed to alogliptin, a uracil-containing DPP-IV inhibitor useful for treating type II diabetes, and pharmaceutical salts thereof. Following a two-day bench trial and extensive testimony from three different experts, the district court concluded Appellants had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged claims are invalid for either statutory obviousness or non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. In their appeal, Appellants challenge several different fact findings by the district court. Even assuming some of those challenges have merit, we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to make Appellants’ proposed scaffold and isosteric replacements with a reasonable expectation of success. On that basis, we affirm. DISCUSSION Relevant to “the assessment of [reasonable] expectation of success” in all three of Appellants’ invalidity theories, Takeda, 2020 WL 549594, at *11, is the undisputed factual finding that “in the relevant art of pharmaceutical development, very small changes in molecular structure can have dramatic effects on the properties of the molecule,”<.b> id. at *10. Indeed, “the more distantly related two chemical structures are, the less probable it will be that they have the same biological effect.” J.A. 33375–76 (Böhm). Against this backdrop, we turn to the details of Appellants’ invalidity theories.

Torrent has not identified anything in the prior art that would have motivated a skilled artisan to dispose of F162’s fluoro-olefin unit, let alone replace it with an amide, given myriad more conservative and predictable modifications that were available for transforming F162 into a “novel” compound. See Takeda, 2020 WL 549594, at *18–19. To the contrary, Torrent’s expert conceded at trial that he was unaware of any prior art disclosing this specific modification, despite citing references that taught the opposite modification—replacing an amide unit with a fluoro-olefin unit. J.A. 942–43. Even the reference Torrent cites to establish that fluoroolefin and amide were known isosteres features fluoro-olefin compounds and is bereft of any suggestion to make the replacement Torrent proposes. J.A. 33349, 33352.

Footnote 6 mentions the issue of factual inaccuracy:

At oral argument, Torrent’s counsel asserted that the district court’s motivation analysis improperly relied on testimony of Takeda’s expert to the exclusion of Torrent’s expert, specifically referencing a footnote in the opinion below. See Oral Arg. at 4:43–6:50 (discussing Takeda, 2020 WL 549594, at *12 n.3, which cites the trial transcript at J.A. 1178–80, 910–11). That footnote refers to testimony from both Takeda’s and Torrent’s experts, including testimony from Torrent’s expert agreeing that “the Kim reference doesn’t say one word about DPP-IV inhibition,” J.A. 910–11. Torrent’s counsel, moreover, could not identify anything factually inaccurate about the footnote.

Covid vaccination program in New Jersey looking increasingly problematic

A story running in the Newark Star-Ledger on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 (see below) suggests that the State of New Jersey Covid registration system might not be currently in operation. Separately, of the private site for CVS in New Jersey all appointments are currently booked (below). The situation is not looking good at this time.

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

New Jersey opening up Covid vax sites for the use by citizens of specific communities.

On 16 February 2021, the Courier News ran a front page story "Vaccination site opens in Somerset." The article was about a vaccination site at First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens," which is a "community-based" vaccination site open only to residents of Somerset (the town) as opposed to all residents of Somerset (the county).

The article noted that "more than 3,000 people registered with 28 hours," and, on a state scale, that 1.3 million total vaccine doses had been adminstered, of which 984,737 were first doses (suggesting that 984,737 distinct people had received some vaccination.) This statement is relevant to an article in the Courier News on 15 February 2021 which said:

About 37 % of New Jersey's vaccines have gone to senior citizens, while 62% have been given to 18 to 64 year olds. This means about 444,000 doses have gone to New Jersey's 1.5 million residents 65 years and older.

To determine "how many" seniors have received at least one dose, one would need more information. If one assumed the fraction of seniors with at least one dose were the same as the overall fraction (0.98/1.3 = 0.75), then the number of seniors with at least one dose would be 444,000 X 0.75 or 333,000, which is about 20% of the population of seniors in New Jersey.

[As an aside, the 2010 census gave the NJ population as 8,791,894 of which 13% ( 1,143,000 ) were 65 or over. 63% of the 2010 population was in the 18-64 cohort. (5,534,000) Merely fyi 0.37X1,300,000/1,143,000 is 0.42 , and 0.62 X 1,300,000/5,534,000 is 0.15, dose per per capita of cohort]

Monday, February 15, 2021

The "over-65" set is having difficulty obtaining Covid vaccinations in New Jersey

In previous posts on IPBiz (e.g. Vaccinations at CVS-New Jersey on 11 Feb 2021: "fully booked" ), IPBiz has discussed the difficulty in actually scheduling a Covid19 vaccination, especially for the "over 65s" now eligible in New Jersey. The problem is not so much "baby boomer" internet ineptitude, as it is that there is "no there, there," as Stein might have put it.

The cover of the February 15, 2021 issue of the Courier News has a secondary headline "Seniors accounted for 80% of COVID deaths. But many feel abandoned in vaccine rollout." Within the CN story:

But New Jersey's 1.5 million seniors found themselves competing with almost three million other New Jerseyans for 200,000 to 300,000 does that the state has been receiving from the federal government each week.

Those with limited computer skills have been hindered by the multitude of online portals run by state government and private providers to secure an appointment. Desparate seniors have driven across the state for a shot and waited on stand-by lines for hours in the cold.

With no documentation required almost anyone can get a vaccine in New Jersey regardless of eligibility. The prioritization many seniors though they have in vaccine rollout has not been there.

The article includes many observations by individuals. The byline is Scott Fallon, email fallon at

Sunday, February 14, 2021

Intellectual property relating to communicating with the dead

U.S. patent number 10,853,717 [Application Number 15/484,470] was granted by the U.S. Patent Office on 1 December 2020 for creating a conversational chat bot of a specific person. This patent grant is currently assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.

The first claim of the '717 patent states:

A system comprising: at least one processor; and memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, performs a method for creating and interacting with a conversational chat bot of a specific entity, the method comprising:

receiving a request associated with a specific entity; accessing social data associated with the specific entity, the social data comprising at least one of: images of the specific entity, voice data for the specific entity, conversational data associated with the specific entity, and publicly available information about the specific entity; using the social data to create a personality index, wherein the personality index comprises personality information for the specific entity; using the personality index to train a chat bot to interact conversationally using the personality information of the specific entity; receiving, by the chat bot, dialogue; generating, by the chat bot, a response to the dialogue using a hierarchical data traversal process to collect response data from one or more data sources accessible to the personality index, wherein collecting the response data comprises: determining, by the chat bot, the personality index does not comprise data for addressing one or more parts of the dialogue; composing, by the chat bot, one or more questions to address the data not comprised in the personality index; and providing, to a user interacting with the chat bot, the one or more questions.

One notes that there is no limitation that the "specific entity" be alive.

From the specification:

For instance, a personalized personality index may comprise social data relating to a deceased relative of a user. Although the social data may comprise information from the lifetime of the deceased relative, the social data may not comprise information related to a time period after the lifetime of the deceased relative. As a result, a set of data acquisition rules may be generated for (or assigned to) the personalized personality index. The set of data acquisition rules may provide instructions for acquiring data related to various time periods of the deceased relative's lifetime (e.g., before, during and/or after the lifetime). Such instruction may include asking a user questions about a time period, one or more events and/or people, or asking a user where such information may be obtained. In such an example, such questions may indicate the specific person represented by the personalized personality index (e.g., the deceased relative) possesses a perceived awareness that he/she is, in fact, deceased.

There have been references to "Dark Mirror."

One notes one 2017 episode of "Murdoch Mysteries" entitled "8 Footsteps" revolves around a PATENT on a device to communicate with the dead (circa 1900). See reviews thereof at .

See the 2016 post by Natalie Zarrelli titled Dial-a-Ghost on Thomas Edison's Least Successful Invention: the Spirit Phone Building devices to talk with the dead was a popular diversion for inventors in the 1920s link:

which includes text

Edison’s idea became known as a “spirit phone”, and caused a media storm. For years many historians believed the invention to be a joke or a hoax; no blueprints or prototypes of a spirit phone could be found. But while he may not have actually contacted the dead, there is evidence he experimented with the idea. In 2015 the French journalist Philippe Baudouin found a rare version of Edison's diary in a thrift store in France. This version includes a chapter that was not printed in the widely known 1948 English edition, called the Diary and Sundry Observations of Thomas Alva Edison. This missing chapter was dedicated to his theory of the spirit world, and how it might be possible to contact it. Baudouin re-published the French edition as Le Royaume de l'au-delà.


Relying on guiding text from Federal court when you are in state court can lead to sanctions

From a 2016 decision in the 17th judicial circuit of Florida:

The Court finds that sanctions are appropriate as certain of the objections are not well-taken. For example, Plaintiff asserted an objection based on a suggestion contained in a federal court's discovery handbook.

Plaintiff also asserted an objection based on a reference to the Southern District of Florida's Discovery Practices Handbook, which was created "for the guidance of the members of the [federal] Bar" and "shall not have the force of law." As such, Plaintiff has not asserted a recognized objection, whether under the applicable Florida state court rules or even a federal court's rules.

Friday, February 12, 2021

Synchronoss loses appeal at CAFC on 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2

The outcome:

Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. appeals the district court’s decisions that all asserted claims, drawn to technology for synchronizing data across multiple devices, are either invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2, or not infringed. Defendant Dropbox, Inc. cross-appeals asserting that all claims at issue are patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court’s conclusions of invalidity under § 112 and non-infringement and do not reach the question of patent eligibility (...)

The corresponding text cited by Synchronoss, however, does not detail what a user identifier module consists of or how it operates. See id. col. 32 ll. 6–34. Dropbox’s expert, Dr. Freedman, identified “many ways in which a system could perform user identification, each with its own distinct structure.” J.A. 2187–88. Synchronoss offered no contrary expert testimony, but rather relied on Dr. Freedman’s list of “nearly 20 different structures” as evidence that a user identifier module would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as corresponding to structure. J.A. 28. In doing so, Synchronoss illustrated that the claim term “user identifier module” does what the definiteness requirement prohibits. It is not enough that a means-plus-function claim term correspond to every known way of achieving the claimed function; instead, the term must correspond to “adequate” structure in the specification that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to recognize and associate with the corresponding function in the claim. See Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1352. Because the term “user identifier module” fails in this regard, we hold that the term is indefinite and, thus, the asserted claims of the ’696 patent are invalid. As the term appears in all asserted claims, we do not address the remaining five terms in the asserted claims of the ’696 patent, which the district court also deemed indefinite.

The NBC News "plan your vaccine" website is not updating

The NBC News website says:

Everything you need to know about getting a Covid-19 vaccination as the rollout extends across the U.S.

But inspection of the website on February 12 for New Jersey reveals the same out of date information as was there on February 11, 2021:

Thursday, February 11, 2021

Vaccinations at CVS-New Jersey on 11 Feb 2021: "fully booked"

Much has been made of the CVS/federal government Covid19 vaccination partnership. The following is what one sees on February 11, 2021 at the CVS website [ ]:

As to the website of Comcast/NBC at , one finds


[image of list of VAX sites within 5 miles of Bridgewater, NJ; four in number]

Of the first place on the list, Hunterdon Healthcare, one finds:

POSTED 2/10/2021 @ 11:00 am The COVID-19 Vaccination Clinic scheduled for Saturday, February 13th is FILLED. The Vaccination Call Center is currently closed until more vaccine is available.

Thus, the information on the NBC "plan your vaccine" on February 11, 2021 was "out of date."

The RWJ site says:

Due to supply limitations, vaccination appointment availability is extremely limited at this time. Once registered, it may be some time until you receive your link to schedule an appointment.

The Hunterdon Family Medicine only has a phone number.

The RVCC (Somerset County) link provided by NBC plan merely goes to the state website
Independently, NBC plan website also directs one to the New Jersey state registration site. A seventy year old citizen receives the following:

Thank you for registering! COVID-19 vaccinations will be made available in phases to ensure those most at risk are prioritized. You are eligible for a later phase of vaccination distribution. We will send you an email when we’re ready for you to schedule an appointment. While we work to distribute vaccines quickly and safely, please remember to wear a mask, wash your hands regularly, and practice social distancing. For more on preventing the spread of COVID-19, visit

Thus, the state website erroneously tells a 70 year that the 70 year is eligible for A LATER PHASE of vaccine distribution.

On Wednesday, February 10, 2021, it was announced that Governor Murphy was self-quarantining after an unidentified family member tested positive for Covid.[Courier-News, page 6A, February 11, 2021]

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Covid19 vaccinations in New Jersey: a tale of two newspaper pages, or "happy face"/"sad face"

While New Jerseyans wait to hear whether or not CVS will open appointments on February 11, 2021, the Courier-News on February 10, 2021 did a cover "happy face" story but had some bad news on page 2. Of the latter, calling at 8am on Wednesday, February 10 produced a busy signal on the phone, but at least one did not have to contend with a confusing website.

First, the happy face on page 1:

Not so happy on page 2 (if you read the details, rather than the headline!):

Tuesday, February 09, 2021

Covid19 vaccine registration in New Jersey: the Seven Cities of Cibola reprised?

After previous IPBiz posts about Covid19 vaccination at CVS, with February 9, 2021 coming and going with no registrations AND with Somerset County residents being told by the state website that they were not Somerset County residents and with ShopRite saying:

Q. Will I be able to get the COVID-19 vaccine at ShopRite Pharmacy?

A: for NJ stores. ShopRite is proud to partner with the state of New Jersey, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to administer the COVID-19 vaccination in accordance with the CDC’s phased approach for vaccine distribution. The vaccine is currently available at select ShopRite Pharmacies in New Jersey for the priority populations determined by the state’s Department of Health. Due to overwhelming demand, vaccinations must be scheduled in advance. Visit vaccines (dot) shoprite (dot) com to check for availability. Please note: Due to overwhelming demand, all available appointment slots are currently booked. We will open new appointment slots as soon as we receive additional vaccine supply. If you are unable to schedule an appointment immediately, please try again at a later date. Thank you for your continued patience and support as we work to fight this pandemic together.

one notes the following from the Newark Star-Ledger on 9 February 2021:

No Covid vax registration info available at CVS website on February 9, 2021

On February 3, 2021, IPBiz posted Getting a Covid19 vaccination in New Jersey via CVS which included text of Tom Davis of NJ Patch and an image of an article in the Feb. 3 issue of the Newark Star-Ledger.

The Patch article noted:

Appointments will become available for booking as early as Tuesday, Feb. 9 as stores receive shipments of the vaccine, according to a CVS press release.

Tuesday, February 9, 2021 is here, but this is what the CVS website says:

Wednesday, February 03, 2021

Columbia University loses at CAFC

The outcome:

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”) appeal from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claim 1 of U.S patent 9,718,852 (“the ’852 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,719,139 (“the ’139 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,708,358 (“the ’358 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,725,480 (“the ’480 patent”), and claims 1–2 of U.S. Patent 9,868,985 (“the ’985 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. See Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, Nos. IPR2018-00291, IPR2018-00318, IPR2018- 00322, IPR2018-00385, 2018 WL 8619911 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2019) (“Decision I”), J.A. 1–81; Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, No. IPR2018- 00797 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019), J.A. 82–162 (“Decision II”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

The arguments of Columbia:

The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York (“Columbia”) appeal from two final written decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) holding claim 1 of U.S patent 9,718,852 (“the ’852 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,719,139 (“the ’139 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,708,358 (“the ’358 patent”), claim 1 of U.S. Patent 9,725,480 (“the ’480 patent”), and claims 1–2 of U.S. Patent 9,868,985 (“the ’985 patent”) unpatentable as obvious. See Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, Nos. IPR2018-00291, IPR2018-00318, IPR2018- 00322, IPR2018-00385, 2018 WL 8619911 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2019) (“Decision I”), J.A. 1–81; Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of New York, No. IPR2018- 00797 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 9, 2019), J.A. 82–162 (“Decision II”). For the reasons detailed below, we affirm.

Getting a Covid19 vaccination in New Jersey via CVS

Tom Davis of the New Jersey Patch wrote:

Vaccines at participating CVS Pharmacy locations in New Jersey will be available to individuals meeting state criteria, which will be confirmed by the state in advance of the rollout.

Patients must register in advance at or through the CVS Pharmacy app, and people without online access can contact CVS customer service: (800) 746-7287.

link to patch:

HOWEVER, if one follows the link to CVS, one obtains

The COVID-19 vaccine is not yet available at CVS Pharmacy in New Jersey link:

See also from the Newark Star0Ledger on 3 February 2021: