• 経由
    in:  | 

    経由

                            目次はこちら

    経由

    –>介する

    (VIA)
    $$ Ions preferably enter the ion trap 8 through or via entrance plate 9. / イオンは、好ましくは、入口プレート9を通ってまたは経由してイオントラップ8に入射する。(USP8344316)

    $$ A money item 127 enters the acceptor 124 via an input opening 128. / 貨幣品127は投入用開口128を経由して受入器124へ入る。(USP8181765)

    $$ The lancet will be sized to fit within the bore via the seal means. / ランセットは、シール手段を経由して内孔内に収まる寸法に合わせて形成される。 (USP8092394)

    $$ When R1 is R5–OCO then the synthesis may conveniently proceed via intermediate 9. / R1がR5-OCOである場合、該合成は、好都合には、中間体(9)を経由して進行し得る。(USP7649000)

    $$ In this case, hydrogen bromide is conducted into the chamber via input port 10 and over the surfaces of the granules 8. / この場合には、水素化臭化物は、入力ポート10を経由し且つ粒体8の表面上を経由して、チャンバ中に導かれる。(USP5339327)

    (THROUGH)
    $$ When the portion is removed, the second sealing member may prevent free passage of fluid through the passageway. / その部分を取り外した時、第2シーリングメンバは、通路を経由する液体の自由な流通を防止することができる。(USP8356616)

    $$ Downstream of the flowmeter8 is located an air injection point 10 through which air may be injected into the water flow through a second reference meter 9. / 流量計8の下流には、空気噴射点10が配置されており、空気噴射点10を通して空気が第2の基準流量計9を経由して水流の中に送り込まれてよい。(USP7580801)

    $$ Water 105 then flows out of the fuel tank through the gap between the first seal plate 113 and the housing 117. / 水105は、第1シールプレート113とハウジング117との間の間隙を経由して燃料タンクから流出する。(USP8356616)

    (BY WAY OF)
    $$ Electrical power is supplied by way of an electrical cable 128 and connector 129. / 電力は、電気ケーブル128およびコネクタ129を経由して供給される。(USP8403824)

    $$ Alternatively, the implementation may be by way of a rotating prism or drum camera. / 一方、これに代わり、プリズム又はドラムカメラを経由して終わるようにしてもよい。(USP6157409)

    (OTHER)
    $$ Accordingly some of the packets from the server 9 en route to the client terminal have the ECN bit of the DS byte set by the router 9 to mark the fact that congestion is occurring. / サーバ9からクライアント端末を経由するパケットのいくつかは、ルータ9によって設定されるDSバイトのECNビットをもち、輻輳が発生している事実に注目する。(USP7319673): en route

                            目次はこちら

  • Disincentivizing the Use of IPRs and PGRs Against Pharmaceutical and Biologic Patents
    in: biologics, Biosimilars, generics, Hatch-Waxman, hatch-Waxman integrity Act of 2018, inter partes review, patents, Pharmaceuticals, Post-Grant Review  | 

    Disincentivizing the Use of IPRs and PGRs Against Pharmaceutical and Biologic Patents

    Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced legislation designed to curb the use of IPRs and PGRs against pharmaceutical and biologic patents by essentially the denying the benefits to generic/biosimilar companies of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.  Allowing the usage of IPRs against pharmaceutical and biologic patents was a serious oversight in enacting the America Invents Act.  Senator Hatch’s Office has released the following information concerning the new Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 (which includes a section by section analysis):

    In 2012, Congress enacted the America Invents Act to fix a problem unrelated to drug/biologic innovation and drug/biologic affordability; it created the inter partes review (“IPR”) and post-grant review (“PGR”) processes to combat the growing problem of patent trolls.

    Even though Congress did not intend to upset its drug/biologic-specific Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA procedures with the enactment of the IPR and PGR processes, generic drug and biosimilars manufacturers have increasingly used the IPR process to circumvent the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA patent challenge processes while nonetheless taking advantage of their abbreviated processes for drug entry.1  Moreover, hedge funds with no interest in manufacturing or marketing drugs have filed IPR challenges against drug patents with the goal of profiting from stock market declines triggered by the IPR filings—a type of market manipulation.

    The Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 would close the loophole unintentionally created by the America Invents Act. To restore the careful balance of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the BPCIA, and to prevent the IPR or PGR processes from undercutting them, the FD&C Act and the PHS Act would be amended to prevent using IPR (or PGR) challenges to circumvent the specific patent challenge processes for drugs and biologics painstakingly created by Congress. In addition, the federal securities rules would be clarified to indicate that filing IPR patent challenges and profiting from resulting stock price changes is a form of prohibited market manipulation.

    The Press Release is available, here.  The text of the proposed legislation is available, here.  [Hat Tip to Professor Dennis Crouch’s Patently Obvious Blog]

  • Disincentivizing the Use of IPRs and PGRs Against Pharmaceutical and Biologic Patents
    in: biologics, Biosimilars, generics, Hatch-Waxman, inter partes review, patents, Pharmaceuticals, Post-Grant Review  | 

    Disincentivizing the Use of IPRs and PGRs Against Pharmaceutical and Biologic Patents

    Senator Orrin Hatch has introduced legislation designed to curb the use of IPRs and PGRs against pharmaceutical and biologic patents by essentially the denying the benefits to generic/biosimilar companies of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.  Allowing the usage of IPRs against pharmaceutical and biologic patents was a serious oversight in enacting the America Invents Act.  Senator Hatch’s Office has released the following information concerning the new Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 (which includes a section by section analysis):

    In 2012, Congress enacted the America Invents Act to fix a problem unrelated to drug/biologic innovation and drug/biologic affordability; it created the inter partes review (“IPR”) and post-grant review (“PGR”) processes to combat the growing problem of patent trolls.

    Even though Congress did not intend to upset its drug/biologic-specific Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA procedures with the enactment of the IPR and PGR processes, generic drug and biosimilars manufacturers have increasingly used the IPR process to circumvent the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA patent challenge processes while nonetheless taking advantage of their abbreviated processes for drug entry.1  Moreover, hedge funds with no interest in manufacturing or marketing drugs have filed IPR challenges against drug patents with the goal of profiting from stock market declines triggered by the IPR filings—a type of market manipulation.

    The Hatch-Waxman Integrity Act of 2018 would close the loophole unintentionally created by the America Invents Act. To restore the careful balance of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the BPCIA, and to prevent the IPR or PGR processes from undercutting them, the FD&C Act and the PHS Act would be amended to prevent using IPR (or PGR) challenges to circumvent the specific patent challenge processes for drugs and biologics painstakingly created by Congress. In addition, the federal securities rules would be clarified to indicate that filing IPR patent challenges and profiting from resulting stock price changes is a form of prohibited market manipulation.

    The Press Release is available, here.  The text of the proposed legislation is available, here.  [Hat Tip to Professor Dennis Crouch’s Patently Obvious Blog]

  • Court Report

    By Sherri Oslick — About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Forest Laboratories LLC et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. 1:15-cv-00756; filed August 27, 2015 in the District Court of Delaware • Plaintiffs: Forest Laboratories LLC; Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd.; Adamas Pharmaceuticals Inc. • Defendants: Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009 (“Modified Release Formulations of Memantine Oral dosage Forms,” issued October 18, 2011), 8,058,291 (“Methods and Compositions For the Treatment of CNS-Related Conditions,” issued November 15, 2011),…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Coca Cola does "Secret Santa" and "Jolly Reindeer"

    The World of Coca-Cola website notes


    Throughout December, Coca‑Cola Freestyle in Taste It! will feature two new mixes: Secret Santa and Mistletoe Flow. Sprite Cranberry Zero is also back by popular demand for a third year, offering a refreshing blend of Sprite with its zero-calorie formula and a splash of sweet and tart cranberry notes. Both Sprite Cranberry and Sprite Cranberry Zero will be available in stores for a limited time this holiday season.

    link: https://www.worldofcoca-cola.com/media-alert/holiday-cheer/

    Here in Central New Jersey, the freestyle machines have THREE holiday flavors:

    Secret Santa
    Mistletow Flow

    AND

    Jolly Reindeer

    with the last tasting somewhat like a birch beer.

    The display on the freestyle machine does not indicate any of the three names are trademarked.

    Continue Reading ...
  • What is a patent owner to do when they want to monetize their patents?

    One thing is certain in these tumultuous times, the business of patents has changed. The days of bulk buying at $10,000 per patent have ended; public IP companies are under legislative and shareholder pressure; and, IPR’s have significantly impacted the value of weak patents. These are just some of the examples of significant business changes. So what is a patent owner to do when they want to monetize their patents? There are only three options for patent owners: they can license their…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Further on the Chien/Risch WSJ op-ed on small entities dealing with patent trolls

    A comment to the PatentlyO post titled Follow-Up: Professor Chien’s More Nuanced Arguments on the Chien/Risch op-ed in the Wall Street Journal [WSJ] notes:


    This group is close to saying, yes I trashed the patent system, but it was good for my career. Once I get the full-professorship and the millions in the stock fund, I’ll reevaluate everything.

    Unbelievable that people like this are hired by universities.

    In his post, Dennis Crouch had stated:

    The Chien article particularly addresses the concerns that I had with WSJ essay, which is why I was surprised to see the completely different focus of that WSJ essay. I thought she had also changed course. According to Chien, the emphasis and framing in the WSJ essay were the result of heavy WSJ editing rather than any backtracking from her prior work.

    In fact, the abstract of the Chien law review article, discussed in PatentlyO, is not about patent hold-out by small entities attacked by patent trolls, but rather about patent hold-out by large entities attacked by small entities. Whether these are “more nuanced” thoughts remains to be seen.

    **Returning to the above-noted comment at PatentlyO (7.1.1), as to opportunistic professors, one notes recent developments
    in South Korea:


    South Korea is set to indict 200 professors from several of the country’s universities for alleged copyright violations after they republished books by other authors under their own names, the Korea Herald newspaper reported Wednesday.

    Professors from 50 universities, as well as four employees of a publishing company, are implicated in the scandal, Korean prosecutors said, with most of them having already confessing their involvement.

    (…)

    The professors’ actions were reportedly done in a bid to boost their academic standing before rehiring-related assessments. The Herald also reported that many of the original authors were also complicit in the scheme for fear of invoking the publishers’ displeasure over future book deals.

    link 200 South Korean Professors Charged in Massive Plagiarism Scam

    ***Separately, as to op-ed policy at the New York Times, from the IPBiz post

    New York Times on self-plagiarism :


    The New York Times does not ordinarily reprint material that has been previously published; Op-Ed contributors are asked to affirm that their work is original, and exclusive to The Times. Had The Times known that portions of the essay were copied from an earlier work, it would not have accepted the essay for publication.

    ***As to the Chien/Risch matter:

    http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2015/11/colleen-chien-on-doing-nothing.html

    ***UPDATE on 30 Nov 2015. Comment 16.3 on the PatentlyO thread:


    November 30, 2015 at 10:25 am

    In those few cases where a paper sought an opinion piece from me on anything, I insisted on seeing all edits before it was published. If the edits rendered the article no longer my opinion, I told the paper to remove my name.

    Chien’s behavior strikes me as bizarre to say the least and possibly even risky to her as well as to those she represents.

    Continue Reading ...
  • FCBA Webcast on Trade Secrets

    The Corporate Counsel Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a webcast entitled “Trade Secrets — A Primer For Practitioners” on December 4, 2015 from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (EST). Charles Matson, Senior Counsel – Innovation, Procter & Gamble will moderate a panel consisting of R. Mark Halligan of FisherBroyles, LLP; David Simon, Senior Vice President of Intellectual Property, Salesforce; and Thomas A. Stevens, Corporate Counsel – Intellectual Property, DuPont. The panel will cover the basics of trade secret law, enforcement of trade secrets both in civil and criminal courts, pending federal legislation on the civil…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Use of Provisional Patent Applications

    Technology Transfer Tactics will be offering a webinar entitled “Optimal Use of Provisional Patent Applications: Best Practices and Pitfalls to Avoid” on December 10, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm (Eastern). Timothy Lohse and Dale S. Lazar of DLA Piper will discuss the benefits and limitations of provisional applications, and the best practices for using provisional applications. The webinar will cover the following topics: • Under what circumstances will a patent claimant get the most out of a provisional patent application? • Benefits and limitations of provisionals • Identifying and preventing common and damaging mistakes with provisionals • Drawings in…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Farewell

    Since posting the first few items on the IP Finance weblog back in January 2008 I have greatly enjoyed my part in what soon became a team effort in seeking to promote greater awareness of those areas of IP law and practice that border financial issues….

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    December 1, 2015 – Efficient patent prosecution (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Dallas Office) – 2:30 to 5:30 pm (CT) – Dallas, TX December 2, 2015 – “USPTO’s Subject Matter Eligibility: An Update” (Knowledge Group) – 3:00 to 5:00 pm (ET) December …

    Continue Reading ...
  • Nautilus Surfaces Again at the Supreme Court

    Nautilus v. Biosig (Supreme Court 2015) (SCOTUS ROUND II) In Nautilus (2014), the Supreme Court significantly heightened the standard for definiteness in patent cases – now requiring that claim scope be delineated with “reasonable certainty.” Previously, the Federal Circuit had only invalidated claims that were both “insolubly ambiguous” and not amenable to construction. On remand, the […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • CBS Sunday Morning on November 29, 2015

    Charles Osgood on “the empty chair,” introducing the Susan Spencer cover story on the 84,000 deemed “missing.” Lee Cowan on striking a chord on Utah musicians. Ben Tracey does Sunday Morning Profile on Carey Mulligan. Luke Burbank on Bentonville, Arkansas and the squirrel cook-off. Erin Moriarty on David Remnick
    Headlines. Robert Louis Deer in Colorado Springs. Pope Francis in Central African Republic. Deaths blamed on stormy weather. Egypt on King Tut’s tomb. Weather: rain, ice, snow.

    Fact: In store sales down 10%; online sales up 14.3%

    Susan Spencer begins with Andrew Meacham of Tampa on Stuart Fletcher Currin. Fletcher srarted to think FBI after him. Then he fell off the eather, around August 1999. Last seen in Seminole, FL at age 44. Meachem tried to find Fletcher. How does someone fall through the cracks. At any given time, 84,000 people are deemed missing. B.J. Spalmer of NamUs, a database of missing persons. Laws are more geared to finding children. No missing person report ever filed for Fletcher. Nanmus case number 99-1145. Bill Pellan of Seminole County, FL. No family members of Fletcher to obtain DNA. Extract DNA from envelopes seal? Yes. The DNA was a match to a body found in Seminole County. Meachem: you don’t just let friends disappear. This case is an example of DNA identification from the saliva used to seal an envelope. [See also June 20, 2015 story at http://www.tampabay.com/news/after-15-years-the-mystery-behind-finding-fletcher-has-been-solved/2234458. Also: http://www.sanfordherald.com/news/dead-man-s–year-journey-comes-to-an-end/article_c7f11849-ce4c-58fc-8dad-44b0169b248c.html]

    Almanac. Nov. 29 1890: first Army-Navy football game. Contest almost died in 1894. Teddy Roosevelt got game back in 1899. Harry Truman came to games. Kennedy in 1962. In 1963, score 21-15, Navy [The 1963 game was played on December 7. Remember Roger Staubach and Rollie Stichweh and the ending: Army’s Ken Waldrop falls 2 yards short of the goal line with 18 seconds left in 1963 Army-Navy game, and the Cadets can’t get off another play in 21-15 loss. ] First instant replay used in the 1963 game. Results to date: Navy 59 wins Army 49.

    Fact: Day after Thanksgiving is the busiest day for plumbers.

    Luke Burbank on “tale of the squirrel” on cooking squirrel in Bentonville, Arkansas. “It just is. Tree to table.” Sustainable use of wild game as table fare. Note: buying or selling wild game meat is illegal. Squirrel sliders. Squirrel bisque. Eating what you hunt, even if it’s a rodent. How does squirrel taste? Squirrel desserts, including ice cream. Winner: squirrel empanadas.

    Erin Moriarty on David Remnick, 17 years at the New Yorker. He chooses the covers. Satire is about not going far enough. Good humored brainiac. Legendary cartoons. “The New Yorker Festival.” Lenin’s Tomb. Remnick started at the Washington Post. Married in October 1987; went to Moscow. Hired by Tina Brown. Brown left to form “Talk.” Remnick brought stability to the New Yorker. Spirit of collaboration. Wife: the pragmatics of it is in my hands. Week after 9/11, all cartoons removed from the New Yorker.

    Paula Pondstone on screen devices. Addiction hampers judgment. Brain retains information better when read from paper than from a screen. Our children will need fully functioning brains for the future.

    Text: The tech industry has profited from the “Every child must have a laptop in the classroom” push, but education hasn’t. Research shows that the brain retains information better read from paper than from a screen, and students who take notes by hand are more successful on tests than those who type their notes on a computer.

    link: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/paula-poundstone-electronics-and-kids-brains-dont-mix/

    Ben Tracey on Carey Mulligan. Born in London. Saw Kevin Bacon doing a one man show in New York. Mulligan received widespread recognition for her performance in the 2009 film An Education. Far from the Madding Crowd.

    Next week on Sunday Morning: Frank Sinatra at 100.

    Moment of nature. Moose at Gros Ventre Wilderness in Wyoming. Note Gros Ventre is also known for a landslide: the Gros Ventre landslide occurred on June 23, 1925, following the melt from a heavy snowpack and several weeks of heavy rain. Approximately 50,000,000 cu yd (38,000,000 m3) of primarily sedimentary rock slid down the north face of Sheep Mountain, crossed over the Gros Ventre River and raced up the opposing mountainside a distance of 300 feet (91 m). [from Wikipedia]

    ***Patent connection for November 29:

    With certain exceptions, nonprovisional utility and plant applications for patent filed on or after November 29, 2000 are published promptly after the expiration of a period of eighteen months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under title 35, United States Code (eighteen-month publication or pre-grant publication (PGPub)). See 35 U.S.C. 122(b).

    Continue Reading ...
  • Quality Control Testing of Drug is Not Patent Infringement

    In a November 10 ruling, the Federal Circuit held that routine quality control testing of each batch of a generic drug as part of the commercial production process, after FDA approval, is not protected by the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1). However, infringement only occurs under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), as a result of “making” a product, which does not include quality control testing.

    The post Quality Control Testing of Drug is Not Patent Infringement appeared first…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Section 102 and Prior Art

    Strafford will be offering a webinar/teleconference entitled “Section 102 and Prior Art: Navigating the Expanded Scope of Prior Art and AIA Exceptions” on December 17, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Anthony D. Del Monaco, Doris Johnson Hines, and Thomas L. Irving of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will provide guidance to patent counsel regarding post-AIA Section 102 and prior art and offer best practices for utilizing prior art in patent applications. The webinar will review the following questions: • How did AIA expand the definition of prior art? • What are the Section 102 exceptions and what…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Jury Instruction On Meaning Of Claim Term Cannot Be Challenged After Agreed To By Parties

    According to Limelight, the district court’s construction of “tagging” was limited to using a “pointer” or “hook” to prepend or insert a virtual server hostname into a URL. The Court rejected “prepending” as a claim limitation because even though the ‘703 patent described prepending as a preference, there was no indication from the claims or prosecution history that tagging was limited to this preferred embodiment. The Court found no error in the jury instructions and held that Limelight was…

    Continue Reading ...