• More on Lesley Stahl and Xyleco
    in: 未分類  | 

    More on Lesley Stahl and Xyleco

    Back on 7 Jan 2019, IPBiz posted on some bad reporting by Lesley Stahl:
    Lesley Stahl “at it” again in sad piece on biotech, Marshall Medoff, Xyleco

    See also a post on 11 Jan 2019
    60 minutes promotes biomass scam including text


    Medoff’s company, Xyleco, has also garnered hundreds of millions of dollars from investors impressed with his inventive use of accelerators. Sixty minutes describes this as his “novel idea of using these large blue machines called electron accelerators to break apart nature’s chokehold on the valuable sugars inside plant life – or biomass”.

    But wait! There are thousands of research papers going back as far as Imamura (1972) about using electron accelerators to break down lignocellulosic biomass. This is done to create more surface area for the next step, in Xyleco’s case, enzymes to break down the cellulose further. Other ways biomass can be shattered are milling, chipping, shredding, grinding, and pyrolysis.

    (…)

    Xyleco isn’t yet in business, so it remains to be seen if the founder’s name ought to be Madoff rather than Medeff.

  • Drew Ferguson and the 1897 book on Robert E. Lee
    in: 未分類  | 

    Drew Ferguson and the 1897 book on Robert E. Lee

    There has been an issue with the presentation, in the office of Congressman Drew Ferguson, of a page in an 1897 biography of Robert E. Lee.
    See for example
    A Confederate book was open to a racist passage in a Georgia GOP congressman’s office. He blamed his staff.

    One irony here is that the book, published in 1897 during the time of proliferation of the “Lost Cause” theme, was meant to paint Lee in a favorable light, and text from that particular page is frequently quoted to that end.

    Another observation, not being discussed, is that the quote being referenced from that page, is from a letter by Lee to his wife in December 1856.

    To see something that is more clearly racist, consider the slogan of Democrat nominee Seymour during the 1868 presidential campaign:

    http://www.stephenlevin.nyc/home/2017/8/23/take-it-down

    See also

    Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters
    By Elizabeth Brown Pryor, Robert Edward Lee

    The page in question from the 1897 book:

  • CAFC rules on attorney conflict of interest in Dr. Falk Pharma case
    in: 未分類  | 

    CAFC rules on attorney conflict of interest in Dr. Falk Pharma case

    The outcome was disqualification:

    At issue are three motions to disqualify Katten Muchin
    Rosenman LLP as counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
    (“Mylan”) in three appeals before this court. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
    International, Inc. (“Valeant-CA”) and Salix
    Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Salix”) move to disqualify in Valeant
    Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
    No. 2018-2097 (“Valeant II”), Salix moves to
    disqualify in Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
    Nos. 2017-2636, 2018-1320 (“Salix II”), and
    Valeant-CA and Salix move to disqualify in Dr. Falk
    Pharma GmbH v. GeneriCo, LLC, No. 2017-2312 (“Dr. Falk
    II”). Because we find that Katten has an ongoing attorney client
    relationship with Valeant-CA and its subsidiaries,
    including Salix, we conclude that Katten’s representation
    of Mylan in these appeals presents concurrent conflicts of
    interest. Therefore, we grant the motions to disqualify.

    Of the issue


    Specifically, Salix—a movant in all three appeals—
    is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Salix Pharmaceuticals,
    Limited, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ValeantDE, which is an indirect,
    wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant-CA. Bausch & Lomb is also an indirect subsidiary of
    Valeant-CA and an affiliate of the above-listed entities.
    Valeant-CA contends that it has been a longstanding
    client of Katten, both directly and through its subsidiaries.

    (…)

    Mukerjee and Soderstrom, then at Alston & Bird, represented Mylan
    throughout the district court litigation. On
    May 3, 2018, Mylan notified the district court that Mukerjee and Soderstrom
    had left Alston & Bird to join Katten.
    On May 25, 2018, Valeant-CA filed a motion to disqualify
    Katten in the district court action. Mylan timely appealed
    the district court’s summary judgment on June 22, 2018.
    Valeant-CA then filed a motion to disqualify Katten in this
    court on July 9, 2018, and the district court stayed a decision
    on the motion to disqualify pending before it. We
    stayed the parties’ briefing on the merits in this appeal
    pending our decision on the motion. Valeant II, ECF No.
    24.

    Of applicable rules


    In Valeant, the relevant regional circuit is the
    Third Circuit, which applies the professional conduct rules
    of the forum state. See United States v. Miller, 624 F.2d
    1198, 1200 (3d Cir. 1980). The forum state, New Jersey,
    has adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. N.J.
    Rule of Prof’l Conduct 1.7(a). In Salix, the relevant regional
    circuit is the Fourth Circuit, which applies the rules
    of professional conduct of the forum state. See Shaffer v.
    Farm Fresh, Inc., 966 F.2d 142, 145 (4th Cir. 1992). The
    forum state, West Virginia, has also adopted the Model
    Rules. W. Va. Rule of Prof’l Conduct 1.7(a). Finally, in Dr.
    Falk, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is the relevant
    forum and it has also adopted the Model Rules. 37 C.F.R.
    § 11.107(a).
    (…)
    Indeed, Comment
    34 to Rule 1.7, which addresses “organizational clients,”
    states:
    A lawyer who represents a corporation or other organization does not,
    by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or
    affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary. See Rule 1.13(a).
    Thus, the lawyer for an organization is not barred from accepting
    representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter, unless the circumstances are such
    that the affiliate should also be considered a client
    of the lawyer, there is an understanding between
    the lawyer and the organizational client that the
    lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client’s affiliates, or the lawyer’s obligations to either
    the organizational client or the new client are
    likely to limit materially the lawyer’s representation of the other client.
    Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 1.7 cmt. 34 (Am. Bar Ass’n
    2018) (emphasis added). Circumstances in which an affiliate is considered a client of a lawyer can arise by express
    agreement or when affiliates are so interrelated that representation of one constitutes representation of all. GSI
    Commerce Sols., Inc. v. BabyCenter, LLC, 618 F.3d 204,
    210–12 (2d Cir. 2010)

    Irrational!

    We find this reading of the engagement letter to be irrational.
    Section 1.2 does not indirectly authorize Katten
    to represent parties adverse to Valeant-CA and Salix so
    long as Katten remains a non-key firm. Rather, section 1.2
    expects a heightened degree of loyalty from key firms,
    requiring something more than mere adherence to the ethical
    rules. It states that key firms should not represent “any
    party” in “any matters” that would conflict with “any Valeant entity.”
    Gorman Decl. Ex. A, at § 1.2. This reference
    to “any matters” encompasses, as Valeant-CA stated at oral
    argument, a “blunderbuss” limitation on key firms to avoid,
    not only matters that give rise to ethical conflicts, but also
    those that give rise to other types of conflicts. See Oral Arg.
    at 9:36. Other types of conflicts could include, for example,
    a matter involving the filing of an amicus brief that presents
    no ethical conflict under the rules of professional conduct, but that espouses a legal position contrary to one
    taken by a Valeant entity in another case. Thus, section
    1.2 broadens the degree and type of loyalty expected from
    key firms.

  • 平成27年度知的財産国際権利化戦略推進事業についての一般競争入札公告 – 特許庁

    平成27年度知的財産国際権利化戦略推進事業についての一般競争入札公告
    特許庁
    イ)入札は、平成27年度知的財産国際権利化戦略推進事業に関する総価で行う。 (ロ)本件については入札の際に提案書を提出し、技術審査を受けなければならない。 (ハ)落札決定に当たっては、入札書に記載された金額に当該金額の8パーセントに相当する額を加算した …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...
  • Chocolate now that won’t melt in your hands – Economic Times


    Times LIVE
    Chocolate now that won’t melt in your hands
    Economic Times
    Growing up, Frederic Depypere didn’t fret much about messy chocolate. In rainy Belgium, the temperature rarely got high enough to melt a candy bar. But on a visit to steamy Shanghai five years ago, he realised that the chocolate swag from Belgium’s
    Sticky fingers no more: Chocolate that won’t melt in your hands is hereMalay Mail Online
    Chocolate Now Won’t Melt in Your Hands. Because ScienceBloomberg
    Hot-weather chocolate is finally hereSydney Morning Herald
    Moneyweb.co.za
    all 12 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Callebaut invents chocolate that doesn’t melt – Good Food


    Good Food
    Callebaut invents chocolate that doesn’t melt
    Good Food
    The chocolate market in Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Middle East and Africa will grow more than 50 per cent to $US48 billion ($62 million) by 2019, versus 15 per cent expansion to $US74 billion in Western Europe and North America, researcher
    Sticky fingers no more: Chocolate that won’t melt in your hands is hereMalay Mail Online
    Chocolate now that won’t melt in your handsEconomic Times
    Hot-weather chocolate is finally hereSydney Morning Herald
    Moneyweb.co.za
    all 9 news articles »
    Continue Reading ...
  • Canary Wharf: great place name, not much hope for a trade mark …

    Here’s a curious tale of a trade mark that might have been. It’s Canary Wharf Group Ltd v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2015] EWHC 1588 (Ch), an 8 June Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision of Iain Purvis QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court on an appeal from the UK Intellectual Property Office.

    Canary Wharf Group Ltd (CWG), owners of the Canary Wharf Estate and one of London’s best-known and most easily recognised landmarks — the giant One Canada Square building — applied to register the word sign CANARY WHARF for a range of goods and services, including printed matter, printed publications, printed reports and circulars (Class 16) and a variety of services relating to real estate management, construction, project management, building, landscape design and security. The name Canary Wharf had been adopted not only for the commercial development on the Estate but also for transport links to the area (there’s a Canary Wharf Station on the Jubilee Line and on the Docklands Light Railway, and a Canary Wharf Crosslink station is being built); Canary Wharf is also the name of a political ward, part of Tower Hamlets, which comprises the Estate and its surrounding area.

    The examiner considered that the mark should be refused as being descriptive and devoid of distinctive character, so CWG sought an oral hearing. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer directed that the mark should be refused in its entirety: so far as the mark was intended for services, CANARY WHARF designated their geographical origin and, so far as it covered goods, the mark designated another characteristic of the goods — their subject matter.

    CWG appealed and maintained that

    * the Hearing Officer had erred in effectively identifying a ‘blacklist’ of goods or services (ones which could be considered ‘local’ in nature) for which any place name would always be refused registration; 

    * the Hearing Officer had not applied the correct test in considering the subject matter of the goods and there had been a number of errors in carrying out the assessment of registrability in relation to the geographical origins of the services. The question which the Hearing Officer should have considered was whether it was reasonable to believe that the sign CANARY WHARF on a printed publication would be recognised as indicating that the publication was about Canary Wharf. As part of that inquiry, the Hearing Officer should have asked himself whether Canary Wharf was already a common subject for printed publications. The theoretical possibility that Canary Wharf might be in the future the subject of a book or publication was not sufficient. 

    * the Hearing Officer ought in any event to have allowed the registration on the ground of acquired distinctiveness.

    Iain Purvis QC was unimpressed and dismissed the appeal. In his view

    *  the names of most United Kingdom cities and towns were capable, when used in the United Kingdom, of designating the geographical origin of services and would be excluded from registration in the absence of acquired distinctiveness, and the public policy underlying the restriction on registration of geographical terms was not served by allowing monopolies to be obtained over town names for services which were already being provided by numerous traders in those towns.

    * the Hearing Officer may however have been guilty of over-generalisation since the mere fact that services are of a kind which one would expect to be provided ‘locally’ does not mean that there is a blanket ban on the registration of all place names in respect of such services. Locally-provided services may be of a kind which one simply would not expect to be provided in all parts of the country. For example, an application for the name of a city far inland such as ‘Coventry‘ might be allowed for ‘lobster pot repair services’ (unless the evidence was that the public would expect lobster pots to be sent away to inland industrial areas to be repaired [which is naturally the case, says Merpel, who is indebted to Katfriend Edward Smith for the illustration on the left]).

    * the services for which CWG applied to register CANARY WHARF were precisely the sort of services that one would expect to be provided from, in or to the geographical area of Canary Wharf and the Hearing Officer’s approach to both the law and the facts was basically fine. Whatever potential difficulties might be found in the Hearing Officer’s general statement, none of them was capable of affecting the outcome of the case.

    * the Hearing Officer was not required to deconstruct the application into each individual service and carry out the Windsurfing assessment for each separately, Windsurfing considered. His broad characterisation of the services at issue had been adequate

    * when a ‘subject matter’ or ‘theme’ objection arises, three matters had to be considered. First, the nature of the goods or services for which the application was made, and whether they were, in principle, apt to provide or convey information about (or imagery relating to) the subject matter of the sign. Secondly, the nature of the sign, and whether it was something that it was reasonable to believe would be recognised by the relevant class of persons (namely, average consumers of the goods or services in question) as indicating a particular subject matter or theme. Thirdly, whether the subject matter or theme was of a kind which (in the context of the goods or services in question) the average consumer would consider was controlled by a single economic undertaking, as opposed to something which was free to be used and exploited by anyone.

    Tough times for canaries?


    * ‘printed matter, printed publications, printed reports and circulars’ was the paradigm case of goods that were apt to convey information. It was common ground that the name Canary Wharf would be recognised by the great majority of people in the United Kingdom as designating a business district of London. It was therefore inevitable that if the words ‘Canary Wharf’ were used in the name of a local newspaper or business directory, in the name of a book on modern architecture, or in a printed report on urban development strategy, the public would understand it as designating the Canary Wharf business district. As for the third matter, there was no reason to believe that the public would assume that books or publications about a business district of London were controlled by a single economic undertaking.

    * it was reasonable to believe that the words CANARY WHARF would be recognised by the relevant consumers as a description of the subject matter of printed matter, printed publications, printed reports and circulars to which they applied.

    * on the evidence, the Hearing Officer’s conclusion that acquired distinctiveness had not been shown was entirely unsurprising, since there was no evidence that the mark had ever been used outside the Canary Wharf estate itself for the goods or services in question. The Hearing Officer had been perfectly justified in rejecting the argument for acquired distinctiveness.

    The IPKat keeps getting this feeling that things could have been different.  If CWG had applied to register the words CANARY WHARF as a trade mark at the very beginning, when no-one had ever heard of the Canary Wharf Estate and there was nothing there but a giant chunk of derelict Docklands waiting for someone to come along and make it lovely, it would have been difficult to stigmatise it as being either descriptive or lacking in distinctive character, and there is no ground of absolute refusal of a trade mark what relates to the need to keep it free for use as the name of an area or railway station …

    Canary Wharf here and here
    Canary Row here

    Continue Reading ...
  • TPP交渉、難関突破も…関税や知財分野で難題「7月がリミット」 – SankeiBiz

    TPP交渉、難関突破も…関税や知財分野で難題「7月がリミット」
    SankeiBiz
    米上院がTPA法案を可決したことで、TPP交渉は大きな関門を突破した。オバマ大統領の署名を経て25日にも成立する見通しで、交渉参加12カ国が合意に向けかじを切る条件が整う。ただ、TPA法案はオバマ政権に安易な妥協を許しておらず、交渉は関税や知的財産分野など …

    and more »

    Continue Reading ...