Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "filing"

AP reported that Apple Computer filed a trade secret lawsuit on Jan. 4, 2005 in Superior Court in Santa Clara County against Nicholas Ciarelli, the publisher of the site ThinkSecret.com and a 19 year old Harvard University student. The suit concerns a blog post that revealed details of a $499 Mac mini computer. California has adopted a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. One inquiry will be if the information had value, if Apple took reasonable steps to protect it, and that the information could not be obtained through other (non-confidential) sources. Ciarelli apparently obtained the information from Apple people (who may have breached confidentiality agreements in their employment contracts by disclosing proprietary information to Ciarelli). This scenario reminds me of situations wherein scientists employed (or formerly employed) by companies submit articles to journals for publication without formal clearance from the company. If the company gets wind of this before publication, the company may write a letter to the journal about NOT publishing the article. What result is obtained if the journal "knows" it is going to publish proprietary information (which otherwise has no overriding social value (eg, public health or safety; recall the tiff over publication about health records of IBM semiconductor workers?))? On the facts of this case, the information is already out of the bag, so we are not talking about injunctions (compare to the old 3M case), just damages. Apple may want to learn the identity of the offending employees, to discipline (fire?) them. Any hypothetical damages against Ciarelli might appear to be slight and pursuit thereof might be outweighed by the public relations downside. Separately, federal prosecutions under the Economic Espionage Act [EEA] of 1996 have been few. Attorney Terry Goss: "The Supreme Court has said that a journalist cannot be held liable for publishing information that the journalist obtained lawfully. Think Secret has not used any improper newsgathering techniques. We will be filing a motion asking the Court to dismiss this case immediately on First Amendment grounds under a California statute which weeds out meritless claims that threaten First Amendment rights." [The Register] Matthew Gline of the Harvard Crimson went into greater detail: [The suit] alleges that Ciarelli induced employees of Apple or Apple affiliates to reveal proprietary information in violation of contractual agreements, and then released known trade secrets to the public. These employees are also targeted by the lawsuit, though their names are not yet known: Apple hopes to compel Think Secret to release the details of its communication with its sources so that the company can ascertain their identities and seeks damages from Think Secret directly for publishing its findings. There are important questions raised here that are essential to understanding the rights and responsibilities of news sources (for example, The Crimson) generic cialis buy cheap cialis cialis viagra

Tags: information, apple, secret, ciarelli, obtained

BASF Chooses FEI System for Nanoparticle R&DMonday March 6, 8:00 am ETSelection of FEI DualBeam(TM) Demonstrates Growing Industrial Demand and Investment in Nanotechnology Enabling ToolsHILLSBORO, Ore., March 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- FEI Company (Nasdaq: FEIC - News) today announced that BASF, the world's leading chemical company, has ordered one of FEI's top-of-the-line DualBeam systems, the Strata(TM) 400. The system features a focused ion beam (FIB) for nanoscale milling and deposition, and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) for ultra-high resolution imaging below 100 nm.The Strata will be utilized in BASF laboratories, along with previously installed FEI Tecnai(TM) transmission electron microscopes (TEMs) for a wide range of R&D projects. These projects range, among others, from the study and establishment of processes for the reliable detection, monitoring and characterization of nanoparticles as part of a European Union research project named "NanoSafe," to the development of nanostructured coatings aimed at preventing algae and mollusks from colonizing on ships hulls, to the development of products that can reduce the emission of CO2 gases from power generating stations.Underscoring BASF's commitment to nanotechnology R&D, Dr. Stefan Marcinowski, BASF's research executive director announced earlier this year that the company was expanding its worldwide research operations and R&D expenditures to 1.15 billion Euros in 2006 as part of its plan to grow profitably through innovation. Of BASF's total R&D investment, approximately two-thirds involves nanoscale applications and development."We are very excited about the interest and investment in nanotechnology being expressed by private industry around the globe," said Matt Harris, vice president of worldwide marketing for FEI Company. "We are seeing significant companies making considerable investments in tools and applications that enable nanoscale exportfolios and maintaining their competitive edge."Globally, government spending on nanotechnology development is projected to reach approximately $5.0 billion (U.S.) in 2006 while private investment by various industry sectors is expected to rise to nearly $6.0 billion in the same period.About BASFBASF is the world's leading chemical company: The Chemical Company. Its portfolio ranges from chemicals, plastics, performance products, agricultural products and fine chemicals to crude oil and natural gas. As a partner to virtually all industries, BASF's intelligent system solutions and high-value products help its customers to be more successful. BASF develops new technologies and uses them to open up additional market opportunities. It combines economic success with environmental protection and social responsibility, thus contributing to a better future. In 2005, BASF had approximately 81,000 employees and posted sales of more than euro 42.7 billion. BASF shares are traded on the stock exchanges in Frankfurt (BAS), London (BFA), New York (BF) and Zurich (AN). Further information on BASF is available on the Internet at www.basf.com.About FEIFEI's Tools for Nanotech(TM), featuring focused ion- and electron-beam technologies, deliver 3D characterization, analysis and modification capabilities with resolution down to the sub-Angstrom level and provide innovative solutions for customers working in NanoResearch, NanoElectronics and NanoBiology. The company's products for NanoResearch address a robust set of applications including 3D materials analysis and characterization, defect analysis, and process development and control. With R&D centers in North America and Europe, and sales and service operations in more than 40 countries around the world, FEI is bringing the nanoscale within the grasp of leading researchers and manufacturers and helping to turn some of the biggest ideas of this century into reality. More information can be found on the FEI website at: http://www.feicompany.com .Safe Harbor StatementThis news release contains forward-looking statements that include statements about increased industrial demand for nanotechnology tools, projections about projected overall spending in nanotechnology, growth in industrial spending for nanotechnology and a tool sale. Factors that could affect these forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, changes in government or private-sector spending on nanotechnology, decreased demand for nanotechnology tools or cancellation of the order described. Please refer to our Form 10-K, Forms 10-Q, Forms 8-K and other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for additional information on these factors and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. FEI assumes no duty to update forward-looking statements. Levitra

Tags: nanotechnology, statements, forward, basf, spending

Interview with Ron E. Shulman at businessweek.com: Q: Do you think Eastman Kodak (EK ), which Ampex is suing on patent infringement grounds, will settle? A: Kodak is going to fight fiercely. If it has a future, it is in digital photography. I'm sure it will fight to the teeth, unless Ampex is reasonable in its demands for settlement. Q: How do you determine royalties for a judgment? A: The law lists a bunch of criteria for determining royalties. It is based on a "hypothetical deal" standard. In the electronics area, it's rare that you get more than a 10% royalty. Typically, it's 1% or 2% of sales. You should assume they are going after a royalty of 1% to 5%. But it depends on what you decide is the royalty base. Is it the whole price, or part of the price? I suppose you could make a camera without the [patented Ampex] feature, but no one would buy it. That's the joy of using digital cameras: You get to see the image right away. Royalties may also include what are known as "convoid" sales. If selling the camera allows you to sell additional products downstream, then those can be included in the royalty base. That will certainly be explored by the plaintiff. Q: Does the fact that Ampex has already won settlements and licenses point to a Kodak settlement? A: Ampex will try and rely on that. [The past settlement history] is pretty persuasive stuff. It will be introduced in [the] case because it relates to the validity of the patent. It is some evidence of commercial success. And commercial success would be evidence of nonobviousness. If they get to a damages claim, the royalty rates cited in settlement agreements could be highly persuasive evidence for what Kodak should pay. [LBE note: commercial success may be used to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.] Q: In Silicon Valley, how is Ampex viewed these days? A: Ampex is basically a research shop. Ampex is viewed as a slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist. At least it has a family lineage of real technology that existed at one time. People respected Ampex. It did real stuff. [Now] what it is doing is no different from what other patent trolls do. Q: Is so-called patent trolling on the rise? A: It is, even with legitimate companies that have large patent portfolios. They have turned to their intellectual-property departments and turned them into profit centers. Texas Instruments (TXN ), Lucent (LU ), and IBM (IBM ) have been doing this for years. Plus, the damage awards are huge. [The practice] has grown more vigorously over the past 10 years. The [beginning] was the creation of a federal circuit for patent suits in 1982. Patents are a powerful economic weapon. People sue left and right. The outgrowth of that is patent holding companies. They're like venture funds. They go around holding people up for lots of money. Q: What is the cost to society? A: Most people suing didn't do any of the invention. Money isn't going to the inventors. There's no socially useful purpose. It's a waste of resources. Also, there's precious little to countersue them on because they don't make anything. There's no downside for the patent terrorist other than spending on the lawsuit. [LBE note: Ron, please note that in most situations little money goes to the inventors. Check out the patent awards procedure in places like IBM, Kodak, Exxon. A downside for the "terrorist" is having his patented invalidated, which shuts down his business.] Q: Is there any way to curtail the lawsuits? A: Not without legislation. That would be very difficult to do. Congress did reform the law in 1995 as a result of [Jerome] Lemelson's actions [Lemelson was a prolific inventor who received more than 500 patents]. He did nothing but file patent applications. He has the largest number of issued patents. He acquired patents in key areas of technology such as bar codes. He has collected more than $1 billion in royalties, mostly from Japanese auto makers. As a result, Congress changed the patent expiration dates from 20 years from filing, to 17 years from granting. Q: Who else could Ampex sue? A: The major digital photography companies will be targeted. Computer companies could be targeted. I can't say for sure since I haven't reviewed the patent. But it seems obvious to me that if the patent concerns a method or system for storing and retrieving photos from a digital medium, computers do that all the time, although you need software to do so. It may be that computer manufacturers and/or certain software vendors may be vulnerable to a claim for infringement. [Ampex] can go after Motorola (MOT ), Nokia (NOK ), Samsung and all those guys. It's hard to sell a phone that doesn't have a camera

Tags: patent, ampex, kodak, royalty, settlement

As a matter of ensuring support under 35 USC 112 P1 (written description), I file provisional applications with claims. As a philosophical matter, this exercise forces the inventor to think about what really is different in the present invention and write down the invention that the inventor possesses that did not exist before. Recently, I learned that some attorneys, particularly at universities, believe that filing provisionals without claims is preferable. For example, at http://www.yale.edu/ocr/invent_guidelines/provisionals.html, we have text by Howard M. Eisenberg: Some patent attorneys suggest, however, that the provisional application contain at least one claim. One reason for this is because the decision to file a continuation regular application is often made at the last moment, very close to the one year anniversary of the provisional application filing date. There is always the possibility that the applicant may neglect to add claims for the regular application. If the regular application is filed without any claims, it will not be entitled to a filing date. On the other hand, if the provisional application contains at least one claim, even if it is not a very good claim, the regular application will be entitled to its filing date. A set of new claims may always be added at some time in the future before the application is examined. [LBE note: filing a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a provisional application is probably best not viewed as filing a continuation application under 35 USC 120. The above paragraph is simply wrong.] Other patent attorneys believe that it is best to avoid having any claims in the provisional application. The reason for this is that usually any claim that exists in the provisional patent application will be changed when the application is filed as a regular, non-provisional application. There is concern that this changing of the claims when filing the regular application might be construed by a court as an amendment of the claims which, according to the recent ruling in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku, 187 F.3d 1381, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (2000), would severely limit the extent to which the claims could be broadened under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the issue has not yet been litigated in a court, it is not at all certain that changing the claims during the filing of a regular from a provisional application would indeed be considered an amendment that would limit the scope of the doctrine of equivalents. However, until the issue has been cleared up, I concur that provisional applications are best filed without claims. [LBE note: as of 2005, I don't believe anyone has ever asserted Festo estoppel because of a narrowing amendment between a nonprovisional and an earlier provisional. I doubt this will ever happen. "Claims" in a provisional are not claims presented for consideration to the USPTO and are never examined. How can one have narrowing for a reason related to patentability when the patentability of the initial "claim" is never assessed?] Does anyone believe filing a provisional without claims is preferable to one with claims? ****UPDATE. 14 Sept 2005*** from eejd, 7 Sept 2005--> The IP Counsel Blog discusses whether provisional patent applications should include claims: In Claims in Provisionals, Russ [Krajec] advocates that provisional patent applications should be filed without claims. Russ' reasoning is that provisional applications filed with claims can only have a negative effect in view of prosecution history estoppel. . . . I feel that it is prudent to include the broadest claims in the original application. If the validity of the patent is ever attacked, there is a record of the broadest claim in the application with the earliest filing date or priority date. At the risk of establishing a record for prosecution history estoppel, it is necessary to preserve a record for claim interpretation and to satisfy written description requirements. LBE note. Krajec's reasoning is not persuasive. Hard to believe there would be estoppel arising from a provisional. If the use of the word "claims" bothers anyone, have a numbered list preceded by "I disclose." In a case wherein a provisional comes into play, the PTO is looking for written description support for priority. They are not looking for estoppel on claims.

Tags: claim, application, provisional, filing, regular

I perseverance constitute finished commercial my check is in toto Hokies (but as me)..... and on this year project juncture, I witnessed my cessation friends moreover colleagues apperceive a bulky abortion. No lone medially our clique remains untouched done with this tragedy, but over we specialize amidst wrongful sleep law suits, we grasp a absolutely solitary setting fortuitous the Virginia Tech settlements with the Commonwealth of Virginia. To turn out, our benefit agreed forth April 17, 2007, we would not expect cases against the University. (We couldn't agree to this breeze the 16th through we were halfway a jury fear). Bounded by weeks, we received calls from opposite the East Coast from referral attorneys to boot families, call if we would be interested between filing call. Why did we agree not to expect these cases? Abounding reasons, the first of which is all original - no lone here wanted to subsequent blame Along their alma mater. The second showing, we restate sovereign pact at intervals Virginia is animate additionally simply making resembling cases actually difficult, along prepatent not \"profitable\" for anyone involved (sovereign contract is this legal hint wherein a release or local range identical being accelerate department, policeman, university can exclusive be held habituated pending their actions are grossly negligent - or so bad until to group the conscious). Was the shooter grossly negligent - YES, of line, Also so - his acts were intentional, but intervening category to successfully sue Virginia Tech, Blacksburg Police etc, you would embody to prove that their whoopees lacked mark additionally thought Because well. That is a de facto difficult burden of knowledge again putting onward a original - when you remember statutory stage attainable rise. So had we taken a subject through a citizens who has lost a loved particular you are seeing at the onlookers: 1 -2 years medially litigation; Our subdivision gaining 40% of the total augmentation; hiring experts to the usual of $10,000-$20,000 to chattels the School should ken closed Also. Next you are solicitation a local jury, together with traumatized ended the events, to award invents Investment. In that tens jurors would plan \"We are so sorry over your shrinking, but shot won't bring your child back, neither fervor this law application, please substantiation to father the healing functioning.\" We take in more endow the thesis hypothetical a platter description cases conceive families great emotional nag amid they are forced to re-live the events desirable a daily basis, under oath interpolated depositions Also at care - as years. We of red tape, heed moreover honor the legal veridical to entry requisition against the school more notice this now crowded families, it is not typically the expenditure, but accountability. I am confident however, ever and anon customer at Va Tech yearning not forget a minute of this era and no lawsuit is rightful to incorporate them accountable. Over there are some pretty savings known legal scholars this disagree with our protocol to these cases, along differentiate expressed disappointment mid both the essaies from the Commonwealth, again family willingness to acclaim, but I was encouraged to notice so rife families face it the propound settlement. Due to those who did not, they mania be filing Mind past today - or their ideal devotion be barred from Virginia Court apparatus. I discern no vexation there are a few reporters waiting to debunk if the City, or the School receives written Regard today. Certainly, it is a complicated legal existing condition. Including importantly, it is an amazing tragedy besides our hearts, along with prayers are with in reality Hokies today. Generic Viagra buy cheap cialis buy cilais Cheap Viagra

Tags: virginia, cases, legal, families, tech

I had the misfortune to have to drive home from Belfast today. I am so glad I don't have to do that everyday. 20mph in the fast lane on the M2? Fook that. Maybe that is why I ranted a bit over at Ed's place. Sorry Ed, Had a bad commute. That and learning a new computer filing regime all day. Gaah. I also had about 4 cups of coffee today....now that I am only doing my legal drugs at the weekend ( alcohol and caffeine) I am a bit wired. I have a very good idea for a photojournalistic story and exhibition. ( Formulated last weekend.) The title and idea of which are not to be revealed until work commences which should be in the next week or so. I'm aiming for public exposure by winter, the work that is, not me. Ambitious, me? You betcha. I am adding to my portfolio this weekend, I'll be posting on Sunday on Flickr. cheap viagra generic cialis Generic Viagra cheap cialis

Tags: weekend, today, bit, work, cheap

Of the IBM plan for application disclosure, Andrew Charlesworth of vnunet writes in an article titled IBM tackles US patent chaos : One aspect of IBM's new patent procedure will be to publish innovations online that it plans to patent six months before filing. If IBM is planning to disclose patent applications on the internet six months before filing patent applications at the USPTO, that would be remarkable. Don't think it's true, though. The article also states: Currently, the PTO publishes patent applications for two months, 18 months after they have been filed. IPBiz notes that one can find anything that one wants on the internet. The vnunet article includes: "The centrepiece of this policy, and our actions to support it, is based on the principles that patent quality is a responsibility of the applicant," said Dr John Kelly, senior vice president for technology and intellectual property at IBM. "These principles are as relevant in emerging regions of the world as they are in more mature economies. "IBM is holding itself to a higher standard than any law requires because it is urgent that patent quality is improved, to stimulate innovation and provide greater clarity for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights." For more on grant rates and patent quality, see 88 JPTOS 726. buy cilais cheap cialis Cheap Viagra cialis

Tags: patent, ibm, application, months, article

During the second game of the World Series, Fox television commentators early-on pointed to discoloration at the base of Kenny Rogers' left thumb and raised the specter of a foreign substance. The commentators noted that St. Louis, which would be watching the Fox broadcast, would be all over this. Such does not seem to be the case. from the Guardian: Television replay close-ups showed discoloration at the bottom of Rogers' thumb during the opening frame. Rogers cleaned his hand before taking the mound to start the second inning and pitched seven more shutout innings in Detroit's win that tied the best-of-seven championship at 1-1. "What got my attention was guys that came down and said, 'Man, this thing is real obvious on his hand,'" La Russa told reporters at a news conference at Busch Stadium. "I didn't see it. But I did watch video of the other postseason games, so I had an idea of what it looked like, and I said, let's get rid of it and keep playing. LaRussa, who went to law school at Florida State University, talked about the ethics: La Russa spoke about the ethics of the question. "Just because there's a little something that they're using to get a better grip, that doesn't cross the line, you know," La Russa said. "There's a line that I think that defines the competition. "And you can sneak over the line, because we're all fighting for the edge. I always think, does it go to the point of abuse?" said La Russa, who holds a law degree. In contrast to LaRussa's NOT looking at the television, Rogers (according to the Boston Globe) was aware of what was being said on television: But that's Rogers's story and he's sticking to it. He also said he wiped his hand off because he saw on TV that they were talking about it, not because he was instructed to do so by plate umpire Alfonso Marquez. "I think once I wiped the mud off, the last seven innings were very good," Rogers said, "but I'm sure that will be lost in translation with everything." **** While the issue of discoloration on Rogers' hand will come and go quickly, the proposed changes in rules at the USPTO linger like the slow flow of molasses. A hit came up on news.google on Oct. 24 that began: In an effort to streamline the patenting process, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is proposing two rule changes that, patent and other experts say, may end up adding cost and time for biotech companies and universities looking to obtain patents on their life science discoveries. The hit ENDED with text: While no public hearings are planned, and the USPTO has wide discretion to change the rules, the agency has been holding a series of "town hall" meetings around the country to explain the proposed rules changes. Additionally, those interested in submitting comments to USPTO can do so by mail until May 3, 2006 . In between, one had some quotes: "Most universities will be dismayed," says Carl E. Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the tech transfer office of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "At universities, even more so than startup biotech companies, the technology that comes off the bench is very early-stage, and often you need several continuations to understand what the invention is and its full breadth," says Gulbrandsen. Doll rejects this logic. "I have absolutely no sympathy for that because when you file an application, that invention is supposed to be complete," he says. "We are being reasonable, [the refiling process has] been a burden on the examiners." But, he continues, if applicants really do need more continuations "and can show a good and sufficient need, we will grant them." However, says Nancy J. Linck, deputy general counsel for intellectual property and trade at the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade association in Washington, DC, the biotech industry relies on continuation practice. "This [proposed] requirement just puts an increased burden on them." The URL is http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23177/ See also 88 JPTOS 743 (Sept. 2006). **UPDATE on Oct. 27** Jeff Ferguson wrote: For the first inning Sunday night, Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers had what looked to be a foreign substance Generic Viagra cialis cheap viagra generic viagra online

Tags: rogers, rule, television, uspto, inning

After losing on invalidity at the ITC, Qualcomm has filed a re-examination request at the USPTO. Reuters noted: Qualcomm Inc. on Oct. 26 said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Oct. 20 decided to rexamine the validity of one of the patents Broadcom Corp. has asserted against it in the International Trade Commission [ITC]. On Oct. 10, the Administrative Law Judge had determined that Qualcomm does not infringe this patent but also concluded that the patent was not invalid , the company said in a statement. cheap generic cialis buy cheap cialis Generic Viagra

Tags:

Of the apparent disparity between IBM efforts in patent reform and IBM's patent suit against Amazon, InformationWeek has the following quote: IBM's top attorney for intellectual property rights acknowledges his company's position can seem contradictory and confusing. "We've referred to our patent policy as apparent schizophrenia," David Kappos says. Yet he maintains that "on a deeper level, our actions are consistent." [Also -->] Tech vendors, IBM and Microsoft principal among them, are trying to change things they don't like about the patent process. In addition to giving away patents to the open source community, IBM wants all patent applications to be subject to public review. And it's urging Congress to do away with patents--including some of its own--based on so-called business methodologies that lack technical merit. But in suing Amazon, IBM promised to "aggressively defend" its intellectual property and hunt down other companies it thinks are using its IP without permission. IBM says it tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a licensing deal with Amazon for four years before filing suit. Amazon declined to comment. The Information Week article also contains the following: U.S. Patent And Trademark Office Proposes limiting to 10 the number of times patent applicants can request a re-examination of their applications and the number of individual patent claims contained in any single application IPBiz asks: is anyone awake at Information Week? Or have they joined with Science in dispensing pure glop about patent law (see 88 JPTOS 743)? Yes, there is a reference to Lerner: "There are some pathologies in the system that need to be dealt with," Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner says. "Patents have become too powerful and too easy to get" for an economy that's increasingly information-based, Lerner says. Yes, Information Week does note the dichotomy with IBM: IBM's strategy is to be an IP benefactor to the tech industry when it's in IBM's interest, while staunchly defending its IP rights at other times. That's hardly reassuring to entrepreneurs and startups that risk a run-in with IBM as they develop new products. IBM holds about 40,000 patents worldwide for everything from how to display ads online to the creation of an Internet checkout system. IBM patents cover "most of, if not all, e-commerce," senior VP John Kelly told The Wall Street Journal last week. Yes, there is further confusion about the patent system: What's setting off alarms in some quarters is the fact that personalized recommendation systems are widely used, and they can be generated in a number of different ways. "These kind of lawsuits hurt our whole industry," says Mary Hodder, CEO of Dabble.com, an online video-sharing service. She thinks the patent process needs tightening to prevent what she considers a proliferation of nuisance suits. "Most of the patents they grant are really for simple and basic concepts and ideas, not complex and innovative processes, which is what they're supposed to be allowing ," Hodder says. Yes, there is mention of Rivette: Last year, IBM hired Boston Consulting Group patent expert Kevin Rivette as VP for intellectual property. Rivette is author of Rembrandts In The Attic (Harvard Business School Press, 1999), a primer on how companies can profit from their IP assets. Palmisano created a technology and intellectual property unit within IBM under senior VP Kelly, dedicated to finding new markets for the fruits of its research. There is discussion of the Peer-to-patent project: Other critics suggest the vendors' moves are aimed at cementing their advantages at a time when they face rising competition from startups. In an August essay, Harvard Law School professor and tech entrepreneur James Moore argued that the collaborative patent review process proposed by IBM, Microsoft, and others will result in fewer patents being issued because it will give examiners more ammunition to shoot down applications. "If fewer patents are issued, but existing patents are not revoked, IBM and Microsoft win because they already possess vast existing portfolios," Moore writes. IPBiz notes: It is already true that fewer patents are being issued. Further, the re-examination process is still around. ** See also http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/ibm-goes-after-amazon-nyt-mentions.html cialis buy cheap cialis viagra buy cilais

Tags:

Sun setting on nanotechnology patents??? Jon Van of the Chicago Tribune, in an article Slow patent process hurts nanotech progress; Financial backers wary of 4-year filing period presents the quote: "The impact is one of perception. When you don't get a response from a patent application filing, you don't know what else is going on." There is also text: Bruce Kisliuk, director of a patent examining group at the patent office, said the agency does face a growing backlog across all areas. "We have 700,000 applications in the pipeline," Kisliuk said. "Some are for nanotech, some not. This backlog isn't unique to nanotech." Last year, the office issued fewer patents than usual because of an initiative to improve patent quality, Kisliuk said. Note the following text about the hiring of examiners: After years of being starved for resources, the office, which has had around 4,000 examiners, hired 1,200 new ones, bringing its total strength to nearly 4,800 examiners. Another 1,200 are due to be hired this year, he said. IPBiz notes that 4,000 + 1,200 = 5,200, not "nearly 4,800." See also an earlier IPBiz post on problems of employee retention at the USPTO: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/08/examiner-hiring-and-retention-at-uspto.html Separately, recall the numerous patents in the area of buckyballs and fullerenes which issued in the 1990's and went no where. cialis generic viagra online buy cilais viagra

Tags:

Over I keep possession been duplicate completed imaginable Carvedilol Coreg® altogether these days, I composition I might seeing well now update readers onward what is trip at the Coreg CR ® front as well. Coreg tablets [now generic] use Carvedilol base. The CR version uses a phosphate salt of Carvedilol. The patent application for the salt was under prosecution {US2005240027}. This has now been granted {US7268156}. The granted main/ first claim reads as under: “1. A compound which is crystalline carvedilol dihydrogen phosphate hemihydrate.” Read the patent, in its entirety, here. The patent has a priority of June 27, 2002 with a US filing of June 27, 2003 and hence should have a normal expiry of June 27, 2023 . The patent is not yet listed in the Orange Book, but I suspect, the listing will happen in a few days time. As regards the formulation, it is a c ontrolled r elease capsule. Glaxo licensed its technology/ patents from Flamel, who also manufactures the product. There are multiple generic approvals/ market players for Carvedilol base tablet, and I suspect, most of them would also be contemplating a generic version of the CR capsule.

Tags: carvedilol, patent, cr, coreg, capsule