text:
< Return To Hearing
Bruce G. BernsteinJune 6, 2007
Hearing before the Chairman Leahy, members of the committee, my name is Bruce Bernstein. I am Chief Intellectual Property and Licensing Officer for InterDigital Communications Corporation and a long-time proponent of preserving and promoting American innovation. Thank you for the opportunity and honor to appear before you this morning to discuss the importance of strong patent rights to innovative and vital American companies like InterDigital. America's patent system has been critical to InterDigital's success and, more broadly, has helped shape the evolution of technologies and products used by billions of people around the world. InterDigital is headquartered in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, with major development facilities in Melville, New York. For over thirty years, InterDigital has been at the forefront of inventing and developing advanced wireless technologies and products that drive voice and data communications. Although we remain a relatively small company, our inventions are used in virtually every digital cellular phone, and we continue to invest heavily in ongoing research and development. As the inventor, owner and licensor of hundreds of US patents, InterDigital shares this committee's commitment to improve the quality of issued patents and reduce the cost of patent litigation. However, we and others in the technology licensing community are deeply concerned that certain provisions of the Senate patent bill (S. 1145) would significantly undermine the enforceability, predictability and value of all patent rights and, in the process, encourage litigation and abuse. Of particular concern are proposals to mandate apportionment of damages and create a new and duplicative post-grant opposition system. We urge the committee to remove these and other problematic provisions from the bill and to limit legislative reforms to fair, balanced and judicious measures that will preserve the strong foundation of patent rights and remedies so essential to the future of American innovation. In my role with InterDigital, I head a small team that manages the company's intellectual property assets and our patent licensing business. I have over 15 years of experience in the intellectual property business and have developed and managed patent portfolios for a number of organizations, including universities, investment institutions, and both private Compared to other companies you may hear from today, InterDigital is a small company with less than 400 employees. But our size in human capital is not proportionate to our inventive capacity and global influence. The bulk of our staff is dedicated to research, development and engineering initiatives, and the majority of engineers have advanced degrees and decades of experience. Over the past three decades, our engineers have created many of the breakthrough inventions that have allowed InterDigital to make significant and ongoing investments in leading edge research and development for an increasingly competitive global market. Today, InterDigital holds over 3,000 U.S. and foreign issued patents combined. In addition, we have nearly 9,000 patent applications in process. Not surprisingly, we are passionate about a thoughtful approach to patent reform, and ever mindful that our ability to innovate and grow is directly dependent on the strength and health of America's patent system. The wireless market offers tremendous challenges and opportunities. Today, it would be hard to imagine a world without mobile phones. Wireless technologies have changed the way we work, live, and play. By typical measures, the wireless market would be considered mature, but the reality is that the wireless industry is changing faster than ever before, with new technologies, products, applications, and services being introduced daily. As technologies, content, and devices blossom, the only limit on the opportunity for InterDigital is our engineers' imaginations. At InterDigital, innovation is the DNA that runs through each of our employees. In the late 1960s, the company's founder recognized the enormous potential of cellular communications -- quite prescient at a time when neither the Internet nor cellular phones were available. He assembled a group of engineers and incorporated in 1972. As his vision has evolved, InterDigital has remained a pioneer in advancing the wireless industry. When the rest of the world was working on existing analog technologies, we were already developing next generation digital technologies. When the rest of the world was working on existing voice technologies, we were working on advanced data technologies. While others were working on existing narrowband technologies, we were working on advanced broadband technologies. And, today, as most are grappling with the ever-growing library of current technologies -- 3G, WiMAX, or WiFi -- we are already working on solutions for seamless mobility between all standards, domestically and internationally. Our constant aim is to focus on the future of worldwide personal and business communications and to innovate for the public good. Further, in addition to licensing our in-house patent portfolio, we commercialize our inventions by offering advanced products and technologies to manufacturers of mobile devices. This cycle of innovation-- from technology inventions, to patent licensing and delivering products--is repeated with multiple technologies time and again. Indeed, our engineers are working today on solutions for the next generations of wireless technologies. Our experience and inventions reach across virtually all mobile and wireless standards. Our success in increasing the pace and breadth of our innovation reflects our fundamental commitment to remain a worldwide leader in the creation of pioneering technologies. To protect our ongoing new inventions, we have employed a comprehensive program of developing and protecting our intellectual property through the worldwide filing and issuance of our patents. In addition to our internal research and development, InterDigital has a track record of successful co-development programs with leading companies around the world. Just in the last few years alone, we have worked side-by-side with our peers at Infineon (Germany), NXP (Holland), General Dynamics (US) and SK Telekom (Korea) to solve unique problems. We also work closely with several universities on advanced research and innovation projects. The US Patent System These are the fundamental principles of this nation's patent laws. As such, efforts to improve our patent laws through legislative reform should be consistent with these important precepts. InterDigital believes that despite dramatic developments in technology in recent years, the underlying and originating purpose of the US patent laws continues to this day. As such, it remains essential that our patent laws continue to reward innovation with a strong and predictable framework of rights and remedies. Furthermore, provided that an invention satisfies the stringent requirements of patentability, an inventor should be entitled to a scope of protection coextensive with the metes and bounds of his or her invention. In practice, it is the examination process conducted by the USPTO which initially determines whether, and to what degree, patent protection should be afforded to an inventor. This process is shared between applicant and examiner and often involves a significant exchange of argument and explanation before the examiner renders his final decision on patentability. Through this dialogue, an inventor may provide arguments of patentability over "prior art" references that have been asserted by the examiner as evidence against patentability. Frequently, an applicant will recognize some similarity between the prior art reference and the inventor's claimed invention and respond with a request to amend the claims in order to appropriately define the limits of the applicant's invention. Through this examination process, an applicant is either denied a patent or granted an exclusive right to the invention defined in the claims of the application. Usually, these patent rights are appropriately granted. Sometimes, however, they are not. Some suggest that this "error rate" has spiraled out of control. I do not agree. In fact, in 2006, the USPTO achieved its lowest error rate in 20 years - 3.5 percent, as well as a record low patent allowance rate of 54 percent. Even in cases of error, moreover, the patent is typically overbroad and not invalid in its entirety. In such situations, the solution is to reexamine or reissue the patent and adjust it to its proper scope. Nevertheless, critics of our patent system are now advocating legislative measures that would create additional and more expansive opportunities to invalidate an issued patent (without giving the patent holder a fair means of appropriately adjusting the patent's scope), and fundamentally change our system of remedies to significantly reduce the cost of patent infringement. The premise of these so-called reforms is that the patent system is broken; the market is flooded with poor quality patents that were erroneously granted; and that patent plaintiffs are predominantly speculators who abuse the system to extract inflated settlements and judgments from large, established manufacturers. With that said, much of the Senate bill is commendable, particularly those measures that are carefully tailored to improve patent quality and mitigate the subjective and costly aspects of patent litigation. InterDigital supports these goals and appreciates this committee's attention and commitment in addressing these important issues. As noted above, however, we are gravely concerned that other aspects of the bill would undermine the strength, value and enforceability of patent rights and hence increase litigation rates significantly, along with costs to patent holders and patent users alike. Namely, Beyond the detrimental impact of these measures on patent rights and litigation costs, we are concerned that such proposals would further burden already strained USPTO and judicial resources. It is important to note that InterDigital's concerns are shared by a large and growing number of innovative firms, universities and researchers within a broad range of industry sectors, including the technology field that we inhabit. Indeed, in a recent letter to House and Senate leaders, InterDigital joined with more than 100 other patent stakeholders, including universities, venture capital firms, small and large technology businesses and research parks across the country, to voice a shared concern about the potentially damaging patent reform measures. The letter was signed by representatives of the electronics, telecommunications, life sciences, computer hardware, financial services, chemical and biotechnology industries. Despite media claims to the contrary, the IT industry is absolutely not united in its support for mandatory apportionment, post-grant opposition or other measures that would fundamentally weaken patent rights. To the contrary, tech industry support for such measures appears primarily limited to large, incumbent manufacturers that are opportunistically using the phrase patent "reform" to justify legislation that would reduce their litigation costs and liability when they infringe third party patent rights. These big tech manufacturers are well aware that the threat of meaningful damages is often the only leverage that a small patentee possesses to secure a licensing agreement with a corporate In the wake of eBay and other recent Supreme Court decisions, the negotiating strength of patent owners has radically diminished, particularly to the detriment of smaller, less resourced firms that license their patented innovations. Mandatory apportionment, post-grant opposition and similar legislative measures would, for many such innovators, drive the final nail in the coffin. Apportionment of Damages Under the Senate bill, a court must ensure that a reasonable royalty "is applied only to that economic value properly attributable to the patent's specific contribution over the prior art," except where a patent has been shown to be "the predominant basis for market demand for an infringing product or process." Thus, in virtually every patent case involving complex systems, this mandatory apportionment of damages would be applied above all other factors that might otherwise influence the determination of a reasonable royalty, including a patentee's history of negotiated royalty rates and other licensing terms. Although intended to guard against allegedly inflated damage awards, this mandatory apportionment test would represent a dramatic departure from the market-based principles that currently govern damages calculations. Even worse, it would result in unpredictable and artificially low damages awards for the majority of patents, no matter how inherently valuable they might be. For innovative companies like InterDigital, mandatory apportionment would encourage free-riders and even existing licensees to risk litigation rather than pay, or continue paying, a market-negotiated licensing fee. As a result, it would undermine the market-based licensing negotiations between the inventor and patent user that have driven our nation's innovation dynamic for more than 200 years. No longer will the market be the arbiter of our technology's value; instead, a paid expert and court will be. There will be very little downside to "rolling the dice" and litigating before taking a license. When coupled with the heightened eBay1 standard for injunctive relief, a mandatory apportionment test would further weaken and destabilize our system of patent rights and Significantly, Congress expressly and resoundingly rejected mandatory "apportionment" in 1946 when it adopted the existing statutory standard for calculating damages, codified in Section 284 of the Patent Act. During hearings on the issue, Congress and other experts noted that apportionment was an overly complex and wholly unworkable test, resulting in excessive litigation costs, extreme delays and unfair damages awards for all parties. One patent expert described mandatory apportionment accountings as "the great evil that has grown up around the patent system." And another expert observed that many cases requiring apportionment had "run from 10 to 20 years, [...] and others I have known have gone on for 20 years. Some now are running that have been running 20 years and all the people that started in the [apportionment] accounting are dead."2 To revert back to an apportionment standard that was universally condemned more than 60 years ago would represent a major step backwards for our patent system -- the very antithesis of patent "reform." In lieu of a mandatory apportionment test, Congress in 1946 sought to create a damages standard that would afford courts the necessary flexibility and discretion to determine a fair and appropriate level of damages in cases where a patent has been deemed valid and infringed. Congress's aim, as reflected in the 1946 hearings, was also to ensure that damages awards were sufficient to compensate the patentee for past injury and to deter others from committing similar acts of infringement. With these time-honored and market-based principles in mind, Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that "Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court." Under this provision, a "reasonable royalty" -- i.e., the amount that the patentee would have obtained from licensing its patent -- is the minimum amount of damages payable to the patentee. Any lesser amount of damages would reward and encourage In some cases, a patent owner may have licensed the infringed patent to others, thereby effectively setting an "established royalty" as the minimum baseline for damages awarded to the patent holder. However, in cases where there is no established royalty, courts have historically applied a wide variety of factors to determine the royalty the parties would have agreed to in a hypothetical negotiation. In the seminal Georgia- Pacific case3, the court identified 15 factors that courts had historically deemed relevant in determining a reasonable royalty, the first and most important being a history of "licensing proving or tending to prove an established royalty." Under Georgia-Pacific, once a patent has been deemed valid and infringed, the courts are provided the flexibility to consider the relevant market factors that would be at issue during a negotiation to arrive at a reasonable royalty for use of the invention. Under this established market-based approach to calculating an equitable award of damages, the court is provided the discretion to determine which factors should be considered for a particular patent and what relative weight should be given each factor. Indeed, in enumerating the list of potentially relevant factors, the Georgia-Pacific court explicitly rejected any kind of mandatory formula or test in deciding the relevance or relative weight of any one factor, other than an established royalty: The drawing of proper conclusions from conflicting evidence concerning the amount of a reasonable royalty has been said to call "for the exercise of judicial discretion by the District Court." General Motors Corp. v. Dailey, 93 F.2d 938, 942 (6th Cir. 1937). Both sides agree that this Court has a broad range of judgment in evaluating the relevant factors. In the present case there is a multiplicity of inter-penetrating factors bearing upon the amount of a reasonable royalty. But there is no formula by which these factors can be rated precisely in the order of their relative importance or by which their economic significance can be automatically transduced into their pecuniary equivalent. In discharging its responsibility as fact finder, the Court has attempted to exercise a This flexible, market-based process for calculating a reasonable royalty has been applied in thousands of patent cases. Congress should not depart from this well-established methodology, particularly when the proposed apportionment amendments appear to ignore hard-won lessons about the dangers of rigid damages rules and formulas. Indeed, by resurrecting a mandatory apportionment test, Congress risks repeating mistakes of the past and subjecting patentees and infringers to the same uncertainty, excessive litigation costs and unfair damage awards that ultimately led to the flexible, market-based damages standard codified in Section 284. The Department of Commerce in a recent letter to Chairman Berman reiterated the importance of preserving the flexible methodology of Georgia-Pacific, despite questions about recent, seemingly high damage awards. Damages awards in patent cases can and should reflect a variety of factors; and neither courts nor juries should be precluded from considering potentially relevant factors, or required to elevate any one factor over another: While the appropriateness of damage awards in a number of patent cases may be subject to debate, DOC does not believe that a sufficient case has been made for a legislative provision to codify or emphasize any one or more factors that a court may apply when determining reasonable royalty rates. . . . It appears that the courts have adequate guidance through Georgia-Pacific and, as a general matter, do in fact consider numerous factors in determining royalty rates. . . The amount of a reasonable royalty should turn on the facts of each particular case, as best as those facts can be determined.4 Of course, apportionment of damages may be appropriate in certain situations. Indeed, among the 15 factors enumerated by the Georgia-Pacific court is "The portion of realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer" (factor 13). Consistent with Georgia-Pacific, the Federal Circuit's model jury instructions permit consideration of the "portion of the profit that is due to the patented invention, as compared to the portion of the profit due to other factors." Apportionment, however, is not appropriate in all cases. In particular, courts have long held that the parsing of a patent's value is sensible only if the patent represents a relatively insignificant and separable part of the overall product. In contrast, where a patent is responsible for all or substantially all of the product's market value, apportionment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Similarly, apportionment is never The Senate apportionment proposal departs from these principles in numerous, significant respects that would greatly diminish the patent rights and remedies of InterDigital and other innovative firms that rely upon their patents to generate licensing revenue and fund ongoing research and development. Beyond the rigid mandate that courts apportion damages in virtually all cases, the proposed amendment would create an entirely new standard of apportionment that limits a patent's value to its "specific contribution over the prior art." In addition, the court must exclude from the royalty amount the "economic value properly attributable to the prior art, and other features or improvements, whether or not themselves patented, that contribute economic value to the infringing product or process." This unprecedented and subjective analysis could lead to absurd and wholly inequitable results in which a patented technology is deemed to have little or no demonstrable value, even in cases where a well-established history of licensing exists. In contrast, the existing apportionment test, as articulated in Georgia-Pacific, looks to the value of the entire patented "invention," as defined by the examination process. Once granted, the patent as a whole has been deemed useful, novel and non-obvious and thus entitled in full to exclusive rights and remedies. The Senate's mandatory apportionment proposal would, in effect, call into question the significance of this examination process, and signal that only certain parts of the patent, as arbitrarily defined by the court, are valuable and thus eligible for damages. The only proposed exception to mandatory apportionment is a new and much-heightened formulation of the "entire market value rule", which requires the patentee to show that the patent's "specific contribution over the prior art is the predominant basis for market demand for the infringing product or process." Here again, the terminology "specific contribution over the prior art" has no defined or well-understood meaning under existing patent law and, as a result, will inject considerable uncertainty into damages proceedings. Similarly, the requirement that a patent's "specific contribution" be the "predominant" basis for market demand will for most complex technologies erect an insurmountable burden of proof that will gut the "entire market value rule" of any relevance. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the bill relegates evidence of negotiated licensing terms to a secondary consideration that can and must be ignored by the court to the extent that such terms conflict with the dictates of apportionment. Under the Senate bill, a court must apply the new apportionment analysis even in cases where the patentee demonstrates a history of negotiated royalties and licensing terms; moreover, the court has discretion to ignore these terms altogether. There is simply no economic or legal justification for mandating that a court and jury second-guess the market, and doing so will only encourage infringement. Under the new mandatory apportionment provision, many infringers will feel emboldened to continue their infringing activity because their exposure to damages under Negotiated licenses, absent litigation, will decrease because infringers will demand royalty terms significantly below what their exposure may be at trial. With diminished risk to an infringer for continued unlicensed activity, negotiated resolutions of patent disputes will significantly decrease and litigation will increase commensurately. Along with an increase in litigation, costs for legal proceedings will also grow as the new process for calculating damages will in virtually every case require the court to determine "the patent's specific contribution over the prior art." The extreme difficulty and cost of administering such a novel and complex standard was emphasized in a recent letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch from Chief Judge Paul Michel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the judicial circuit that hears all appeals from federal district courts arising under US patent laws. In his letter, Chief Judge Michel noted that courts and juries are ill-equipped to interpret or apply this new apportionment test, and the requirement that they do so will inevitably lead to costly battles between expert witnesses and increased litigation costs and delays: This is a massive undertaking for which courts are ill-equipped. For one thing, generalist judges lack experience and expertise in making such extensive, complex economic valuations, as do lay jurors. For another, courts would be inundated with massive amounts of data, requiring extra weeks of trial in nearly every case. Resolving the meaning of this novel language could take years, as could the mandating of proper methods. The provision also invites an unseemly battle of "hired-gun" experts opining on the basis of indigestible quantities of economic data. Such an exercise might be successfully executed by an economic institution with massive resources and unlimited time, but hardly seems within the capability of already overburdened district courts.5 Chief Judge Michel concludes by stating that he is "unaware of any convincing demonstration of the need" for this new mandatory apportionment standard. Post-Grant Opposition Reexaminations procedures are an important part of our patent system and a critical check on the small percentage of patents that are erroneously granted each year. At the same time, however, such procedures must also strive to preserve the value and enforceability of the vast majority of meritorious patents. Under Chapters 30 and 31 of the Patent Act, a patent can be challenged at the USPTO through both ex parte and inter partes reexamination procedures, respectively. Unlike ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination allows the third party to participate during the process of reexamination by submitting written comments addressing issues raised by the patent examiner or the patent owner's response to the PTO. The opportunity for reexamination under these two sections of the Patent Act extends for the life of the patent. However, a party is estopped from raising at a later time any ground for invalidity that the third party raised or could have raised during the reexamination proceedings, unless the assertion of invalidity is based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the challenger and PTO at the time of the original reexamination proceedings. During the process of reexamination, the patent owner may make amendments to the claims of the patent in order to arrive at the proper scope of protection for the claimed invention. In some cases, every claim of a patent is canceled, but usually the claims are confirmed or substituted with new or amended claims. This process recognizes that although certain issued patent claims may be invalid in view of newly identified prior art, the patent holder should be able to modify the scope of patent protection in view of this prior art and retain rights in the adjusted claims. In that respect, the goal of reexamination is not to "bust" patents, but to ensure that their scope is appropriate in view of the prior art. InterDigital believes that adding an expansive and duplicative new post-grant opposition process, while maintaining and expanding the existing inter partes reexamination process, would subject patents to an unfair and unreasonable number of duplicative attacks on validity. Under the proposed opposition system, only those grounds that are actually raised by a petitioner are estopped from being asserted again in a subsequent administrative proceeding or civil action. This narrow estoppel effect will encourage duplicative administrative and judicial challenges -- a threat further exacerbated by the bill's narrowing of the inter partes estoppel effect. In addition to the threat of harassment, patentees will find it far more expensive to defend administrative challenges under the proposed opposition system. A post-grant opposition system would combine aspects of a judicial and administrative reexamination process, but eliminate or substantially dilute existing safeguards that have effectively discouraged misuse of the system. In the process, it would create a quasi-judicial system of administrative litigation that heavily tips the balance in favor of the challenger's interests. Unlike a civil proceeding, a post-grant opposition system would facilitate invalidation by eliminating the patent's presumption of validity and reducing significantly the challenger's evidentiary burden to mere preponderance of the evidence (compared with the rigorous clear and convincing standard that governs judicial invalidity challenges). Moreover, because the proposed opposition system would unnecessarily restrict the patentee's ability to amend its claims (in contrast with the flexible inter partes reexamination process), it would encourage outright invalidation of a patent that may simply require an adjustment in scope. This threat will be used aggressively by accused infringers against patent owners. Patent owners will bear the brunt of these increased litigation costs, particularly if opposition is permitted for any issue of patentability throughout the life of the patent. In contrast, a competitor or free rider - relieved of robust evidentiary requirements and the risk of estoppel - would have every incentive to seek opposition, regardless of the patent's strength. Such a system would inevitably invite abuse, allowing corporate giants to misuse opposition litigation as a means of blocking patents that frustrate their business interests. Indeed, by stripping a patent holder of the protections that guard against This potential for costly, duplicative and harassing attacks on granted patents would be extremely detrimental to patent holders that rely upon negotiated license agreements to secure revenue and financing. The proposed regulations and sanctions for abuse would do little to prevent gamesmanship of the system, since demonstrating misuse would be an extremely difficult exercise. The proposed post-grant opposition system would thus allow infringers to utilize different channels of post-grant review to avoid legitimate licensing efforts. Such a result would be particularly devastating for start-ups and other smaller firms whose very survival is often dependent on early stage venture capital and licensing revenue. Significantly, the current proposal for post-grant review would do little to improve patent quality. If afforded an indefinite "second window" that can be triggered by virtually any challenger at any time, third parties in possession of relevant prior art would have little incentive to bring such references to the PTO's attention, particularly if the estoppel effect of a second window is no broader than that of the first window. Instead, a potential infringer would almost always be inclined to hold onto the prior art until the last possible moment (e.g., after repeated attempts by the patent holder to negotiate a patent license resulting in a dispute that appears headed for litigation) before filing a "second window" petition for cancellation of the patent. Finally, a surge in complex post-grant proceedings will further strain an already over-burdened and under-funded USPTO staff, thus jeopardizing the agency's ability to improve pre-grant patent quality. The Department of Commerce echoed this concern in its letter to Chairman Berman, noting that the proposed "second window coupled with the substantial number of patents subject to the proposed review procedures create very legitimate concerns about the USPTO's ability to effectively handle the potential workload." With a portfolio of some 400,000 patent applications per year, the USPTO is struggling to perform its core examination functions, as evidenced by application pendency periods of 30-40 months. The proposed post-grant opposition system will inevitably divert funding from the examination corps, potentially resulting in even greater delays and, most importantly, diminished patent quality. To guard against these negative effects, we urge Congress to consider improvements to the existing post-grant system of inter partes reexamination in lieu of a new, duplicative and potentially burdensome administrative review process. If post-grant opposition is ultimately deemed to be a necessary and preferable alternative to inter partes reexamination, implementation of a new opposition proceeding should not occur until the USPTO has demonstrated its ability to perform core examination functions in a timely manner and is given the resources to manage the significant demands of a new system of administrative litigation. Even at that time, opposition proceedings should be limited to a single window of review (i.e., within 12 months of issuance) and combined with adequate safeguards against abusive challenges, including a meaningful estoppel effect and a mechanism to allow the patent holder to freely amend his/her claims as in the current Substantive USPTO Rulemaking Authority The Senate bill would empowers the Director of the USPTO with unprecedented and expansive substantive rulemaking authority, which would encompass any "rules, regulations, and orders that the Director determines appropriate to carry out the provisions of [the Patent Act] or any other law applicable to the [USPTO] or that the Director determines necessary to govern the operation and organization of the Office." This rulemaking authority would pave the way for well-intentioned but inadvisable regulatory changes, including severe restrictions on continuation and claim practice that are opposed by the overwhelming majority of patent holders. Significantly, even the Department of Commerce voiced concerns about "unbounded discretion" in its letter to Chairman Berman and recommended against an overly broad grant of rulemaking authority. Because of various limits on its jurisdiction, the USPTO lacks meaningful exposure to the commercial and economic complexities of patents post-issuance, and thus lacks the breadth of perspective and experience to legislate effectively in substantive and critical areas of patent prosecution. As evidence of this, the USPTO has recently proposed significant regulatory changes that would negatively impact innovators and economic growth, including unprecedented limitations on continuation and claims practice. The fact that the USPTO has hastily finalized these new rules -- without disclosing its underlying studies and despite overwhelming opposition among patent holders -- confirms that its rulemaking procedures are ill-equipped to conduct administrative patent reform with the necessary deliberation and transparency. Interlocutory Appeals The Senate bill would expressly authorize an immediate appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) after a pre-trial Markman hearing on claim construction. Although aimed at reducing the length and cost of patent litigation, InterDigital believes that an immediate appeal right could have the reverse effect of increasing the costs and delays of litigation, as noted in Chief Judge Michel's letter to Chairman Leahy and Senate Hatch. We thus encourage the committee to remove this amendment from the bill. Under current law, issues concerning claim construction may be appealed to the CAFC upon a judgment from the lower court. The Senate bill would allow a party, as a matter of right, to appeal from an interlocutory order on claim construction. Since claim construction is a crucial component to virtually all patent infringement cases, a party dissatisfied with the lower court's order will most likely pursue an appeal to the CAFC. As a result, this right of appeal will significantly delay final judgments from the lower court and result in increased delays in reaching potential settlements, as well as increased litigation costs. Similarly, a dramatic increase in the number of appeals brought to the CAFC will further stretch its limited resources, causing further delays and costs at the appellate level. In his letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch, the CAFC's Chief Judge Michel noted that based on empirical studies, immediate appeal of claim construction rulings could double the number of filings to the CAFC and also double the amount of time necessary to resolve an appeal from one to two years. In the meantime, proceedings at the trial court level would be frozen, thus doubling delays in district courts, which according to Judge Michel, are typically two to three years. InterDigital also shares Judge Michel's concern that claim construction appeals could lead to significant inefficiencies, as claim construction rulings are subject to change during summary judgment proceedings or trials. InterDigital Supports Balanced Reforms that Promote Patent Quality, Fairness and Incentives to Innovate The concept of patent "reform" signifies improvements to the efficiency, fairness and overall strength of our patent system. As a licensing-based business that lives or dies on the strength of its patents, InterDigital is a staunch advocate of true patent reform, particularly measures that enhance patent quality, preserve incentives to innovate, and promote a fair and balanced playing field among all stakeholders, large and small.
In that same vein, increased USPTO resources will yield quality gains only if examiners have the information and incentives to recognize and reject claims for obvious or non-novel inventions. InterDigital thus supports measures that would foster an environment of cooperation between patent examiners and applicants and increase the prior art available to examiners. These include, for example, the Senate bill's proposal to increase third-party submissions and mandate universal publication of all patent applications. InterDigital also supports reforms designed to reduce litigation costs, uncertainty and abuse. It is a mistake, however, to characterize efforts to weaken the enforceability of legitimate patents as litigation reforms. Not only would such measures undercut the rights of all patent owners to protect a few corporate giants from potential infringement litigation, they would ultimately increase the number of lawsuits by encouraging infringers to seek court-ordered rather than market-based solutions. We believe that litigation reforms should reduce the subjective, unpredictable and inefficient aspects of patent litigation that negatively impact patent owners and users alike. For example, we would encourage the committee to reintroduce an amendment to Conclusion If our shared objective is to improve patent quality while preserving incentives to innovate, we should instead pursue reforms that enhance patent examination resources and capabilities within the USPTO and make it harder for questionable patent applications to survive pre-grant scrutiny. The USPTO has already taken important steps to achieve these goals, hiring thousands of new examiners, instituting new training programs and committing annually to performance benchmarks. But it needs Congress's support in the form of a predictable flow of resources and hence a permanent end to fee diversion. In addition, InterDigital encourages this committee to pursue constructive but narrowly tailored reforms that would increase access to prior art and lessen the subjective aspects of litigation. Carefully structured measures of this type would ultimately fortify the health of our patent system without endangering the rights of American's most innovative firms. The Senate patent bill has been described as the most significant piece of patent legislation in over 50 years. As such, it is no exaggeration that this bill and its proposed changes to our patent system will have a dramatic impact on the future course of American innovation. Although InterDigital believes that many of the bill's provisions will have a positive impact, encouraging companies like ours to invest in the cutting edge innovations that will secure our country's economic leadership, we fear that mandatory apportionment, open-ended post-grant opposition, broad administrative rulemaking authority and interlocutory appeals could have a very detrimental effect, particularly if they signal to other countries a weakening of America's commitment to strong patent rights. America's system of patent rights and remedies can and should be improved, but it is universally recognized throughout the world as the gold standard. As such, it has given 1 eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. ___; 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006). |


text:
2012 1/4 oz Proof Gold Lunar Year of the Dragon (Series II)
We provide all our customers with a refund, return and/or exchange policy on everything we sell including all bullion and certified coins. If for any reason you have a problem, please feel free to call our offices. We will always do our best to accommodate you.
Gold | Bid: $1,339.50 | Ask: $1,341.50 |
Volume Pricing
Product Description
Mintage of no more than 5,000 coins!
This beautiful Proof Gold coin features a traditional Chinese dragon, a 'pearl of wisdom' and the Chinese character for 'dragon' on the reverse. The Ian Rank-Broadley likeness of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the monetary denomination are shown on the obverse. This coin comes in an attractive box and comes with the certificate of authenticity.
Find the best Gold value at APMEX. We offer low Gold prices and a wide selection of Gold coins to make buying Gold online easy.
APMEX stands behind every product it sells with a satisfaction guarantee.
Product Specifications
Product ID: | 64212 |
Year: | 2012 |
Mint Mark: | P - Perth Mint |
Grade: | Proof |
Denomination: | $25 |
Diameter: | 22.6 mm |
Thickness: | 2.20 mm |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
42 U.S. Code § 11408 - Rural housing stability grant program
prev | next
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall establish and carry out a rural housing stability grant program. In carrying out the program, the Secretary may award grants to eligible organizations in lieu of grants under part C in order to pay for the Federal share of the cost of—
rehousing or improving the housing situations of individuals and families who are homeless or in the worst housing situations in the geographic area;
Use of funds
In general
An eligible organization may use a grant awarded under subsection (a) of this section to provide, in rural areas—
rent, mortgage, or utility assistance after 2 months of nonpayment in order to prevent eviction, foreclosure, or loss of utility service;
security deposits, rent for the first month of residence at a new location, and relocation assistance;
construction of new housing units to provide transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and families and individuals and families at risk of homelessness;
acquisition or rehabilitation of a structure to provide supportive services or to provide transitional or permanent housing, other than emergency shelter, to homeless individuals and families and individuals and families at risk of homelessness;
leasing of property, or portions of property, not owned by the recipient or project sponsor involved, for use in providing transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and families and individuals and families at risk of homelessness, or providing supportive services to such homeless and at-risk individuals and families;
provision of rental assistance to provide transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and families and individuals and families at risk of homelessness, such rental assistance may include tenant-based or project-based rental assistance;
rehabilitation and repairs such as insulation, window repair, door repair, roof repair, and repairs that are necessary to make premises habitable;
Award of grants
Communities with populations of less than 10,000
Set aside
In awarding grants under subsection (a) of this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make available not less than 50 percent of the funds transferred under subsection (l)(1) of this section for the fiscal year for grants to eligible organizations serving communities that have populations of less than 10,000.
Communities without significant Federal assistance
In awarding grants under subsection (a) of this section, including grants awarded in accordance with paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority to eligible organizations serving communities not currently receiving significant Federal assistance under this chapter.
In order to be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) of this section, an organization shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may require. The application shall include, at a minimum—
an assurance that the assistance to be provided is closely related to the identified needs of the target population;
a description of the existing assistance available to the target population, including Federal, State, and local programs, and a description of the manner in which the organization will coordinate with and expand existing assistance or provide assistance not available in the immediate area;
an agreement by the organization that the organization will collect data on the projects conducted by the organization, including assistance provided, number and characteristics of persons served, and causes of homelessness for persons served;
a description of how individuals and families who are homeless or who have the lowest incomes in the community will be involved by the organization through employment, volunteer services, and otherwise, in providing, operating, and rehabilitating housing assisted under this section and in providing services assisted under this section and services for occupants of housing assisted under this section;
Eligible organizations
Organizations eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) of this section shall include private nonprofit entities and county and local governments.
Matching funding
In general
An organization eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a) shall specify matching contributions from any source other than a grant awarded under this part, that shall be made available in the geographic area in an amount equal to not less than 25 percent of the funds provided for the project or activity, except that grants for leasing shall not be subject to any match requirement.
Limitations on in-kind match
The cash value of services provided to the beneficiaries or clients of an eligible organization by an entity other than the organization may count toward the contributions in paragraph (1) only when documented by a memorandum of understanding between the organization and the other entity that such services will be provided.
Selection criteria
The Secretary shall establish criteria for selecting recipients of grants under subsection (a), including—
the participation of potential beneficiaries of the project in assessing the need for, and importance of, the project in the community;
the degree to which the project addresses the most harmful housing situations present in the community;
the degree of collaboration with others in the community to meet the goals described in subsection (a);
the performance of the organization in improving housing situations, taking account of the severity of barriers of individuals and families served by the organization;
for organizations that have previously received funding under this section, the extent of improvement in homelessness and the worst housing situations in the community since such funding began;
In general
Not later than 18 months after funding is first made available pursuant to the amendments made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, the Secretary shall conduct an evaluation of the program to—
Not later than 24 months after funding is first made available pursuant to the amendment made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, the Secretary shall submit to Congress the evaluation of the program conducted under paragraph (1), including recommendations for any Federal administrative or legislative changes that may be necessary to improve the ability of rural communities to meet the goals described in subsection (a).
Technical assistance
The Secretary shall provide technical assistance to eligible organizations in developing programs in accordance with this section, and in gaining access to other Federal resources that may be used to assist homeless persons in rural areas. Such assistance may be provided through regional workshops, and may be provided directly or through grants to, or contracts with, nongovernmental entities.
Termination of assistance
If an individual or family who receives assistance under this section violates requirements of the assistance program provided by the organization receiving a grant under this section, the organization may terminate assistance in accordance with a formal process established by the organization that recognizes the rights of individuals receiving such assistance to due process of law, which may include a hearing.
For purposes of this section:
The term "program" means the rural housing stability grant program established under this section.
Rural area; rural community
The terms "rural area" and "rural community" mean—
any area or community, respectively, no part of which is within an area designated as a standard metropolitan statistical area by the Office of Management and Budget;
any area or community, respectively, that is—
any area or community, respectively, located in a State that has population density of less than 30 persons per square mile (as reported in the most recent decennial census), and of which at least 1.25 percent of the total acreage of such State is under Federal jurisdiction, provided that no metropolitan city (as such term is defined in section
5302 of this title) in such State is the sole beneficiary of the grant amounts awarded under this section.
Program funding
In general
The Secretary shall determine the total amount of funding attributable under section
(b)(2) of this title to meet the needs of any geographic area in the Nation that applies for funding under this section. The Secretary shall transfer any amounts determined under this subsection from the Community Homeless Assistance Program and consolidate such transferred amounts for grants under this section, except that the Secretary shall transfer an amount not less than 5 percent of the amount available under part C for grants under this section. Any amounts so transferred and not used for grants under this section due to an insufficient number of applications shall be transferred to be used for grants under part C.
Any amount paid to a grant recipient for a fiscal year that remains unobligated at the end of the year shall remain available to the recipient for the purposes for which the payment was made for the next fiscal year. The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to recover any amount not obligated by the recipient at the end of the second fiscal year, and shall redistribute the amount to another eligible organization.
(Pub. L. 100–77, title IV, § 491, as added Pub. L. 102–550, title XIV, § 1408,Oct. 28, 1992, 106 Stat. 4035; amended Pub. L. 104–330, title V, § 506(a)(10),Oct. 26, 1996, 110 Stat. 4045; Pub. L. 111–22, div. B, title IV, § 1401(2),May 20, 2009, 123 Stat. 1696.)
References in Text
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c)(2), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 100–77, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 482, known as the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section
11301 of this title and Tables.
Title IV of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, referred to in subsec. (h), is title IV of div. B of Pub. L. 111–22, which amended this section.
2009—Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(A), substituted "Rural housing stability grant program" for "Rural homelessness grant program" in section catchline.
Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(B)(i), (ii), substituted "rural housing stability grant program" for "rural homelessness grant program" and inserted "in lieu of grants under part C" after "eligible organizations" in introductory provisions.
Subsec. (a)(1) to (3). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(B)(iii), added pars. (1) to (3) and struck out former pars. (1) to (3) which read as follows:
"(1) assisting programs providing direct emergency assistance to homeless individuals and families;
"(2) providing homelessness prevention assistance to individuals and families at risk of becoming homeless; and
"(3) assisting individuals and families in obtaining access to permanent housing and supportive services."
Subsec. (b)(1)(D) to (K). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(C), added subpars. (D) to (H), redesignated former subpars. (E) to (G) as (I) to (K), respectively, and struck out former subpar. (D) which read as follows: "transitional housing;".
Subsecs. (b)(2), (c)(1)(A), (3). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(D), (E), substituted "transferred" for "appropriated".
Subsec. (d)(6). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(F)(ii)(I), substituted "a description of how individuals and families who are homeless or who have the lowest incomes in the community will be involved by the organization" for "an agreement by the organization that, to the maximum extent practicable, the organization will involve homeless individuals and families".
Subsec. (d)(7), (8). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(F)(i), (ii)(II), (iii), added pars. (7) and (8).
Subsecs. (f), (g). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(G), added subsecs. (f) and (g) and struck out former subsecs. (f) and (g) which related to the Federal share of the costs of providing assistance and participation of homeless individuals, respectively.
Subsec. (h)(1). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(H)(i)–(iii), substituted "Not later than 18 months after funding is first made available pursuant to the amendments made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, the" for "The" in introductory provisions, "meeting the goals described in subsection (a)" for "providing housing and other assistance to homeless persons" in subpar. (A), and "meet the goals described in subsection (a) in rural areas" for "address homelessness in rural areas" in subpar. (B).
Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(H)(iv), substituted "Not later than 24 months after funding is first made available pursuant to the amendment made by title IV of the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009, the" for "The", struck out ", not later than 18 months after the date on which the Secretary first makes grants under the program," after "Congress", and substituted "meet the goals described in subsection (a)" for "prevent and respond to homelessness".
Subsec. (k)(1). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(I)(i), substituted "rural housing stability grant program" for "rural homelessness grant program".
Subsec. (k)(2)(B)(ii). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(I)(ii)(II), substituted "county where at least 75 percent of the population is rural; or" for "rural census tract."
Subsec. (k)(2)(C). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(I)(ii)(I), (III), added subpar. (C).
Subsec. (l). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(J)(i), substituted "Program funding" for "Authorization of appropriations" in heading.
Subsec. (l)(1). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(J)(ii), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1). Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $31,260,000 for fiscal year 1994."
Subsec. (m). Pub. L. 111–22, § 1401(2)(K), added subsec. (m).
1996—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 104–330struck out ", Indian tribes (as such term is defined in section
(a) of this title)," after "nonprofit entities".
Effective Date of 2009 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 111–22effective on the earlier of 18 months after May 20, 2009, or 3 months after publication of certain final regulations by Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, see section 1503 ofPub. L. 111–22, set out as a note under section
11302 of this title.
Effective Date of 1996 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–330effective Oct. 1, 1997, except as otherwise expressly provided, see section 107 ofPub. L. 104–330, set out as an Effective Date note under section
4101 of Title
25, Indians.
Amendment by Pub. L. 104–330applicable with respect to amounts made available for assistance under this subchapter for fiscal year 1998 and fiscal years thereafter, see section 506(c) ofPub. L. 104–330, set out as a note under section
11371 of this title.
For provisions relating to definition of "local government" as used in this section, see section 100261 ofPub. L. 112–141, set out as a HEARTH Act Technical Corrections note under section
11360 of this title.
The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.
The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013
An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.
42 USC | Description of Change | Session Year | Public Law | Statutes at Large |
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.


text:
Welcome to Formal Grievance.com
Are you considering writing a letter of grievance to your employer, due to a grievance you have at work? www.formalgrievance.com has a free Grievance Letter Template example, which you can use to send to your employer, which encompasses UK employment law.
You may be asking yourself why write a grievance letter to your employer at all? I will tell you why, click here.
www.formalgrievance.com also contains information relevant to employment law, unfair dismissal, constructive dismissal, employee rights and the grievance procedure.
www.formalgrievance.com is written to aid employees who are considering lodging a letter of grievance. This site includes a grievance letter sample of what you could state within your own formal grievance letter, and includes employment law and employment rights respective to England, Scotland and Wales. Alternatively you can purchase the Grievance Letter Template UK for only £12.00.The Grievance Letter Template UK encompasses UK employment laws germane to (i) work related stress, (ii) workplace harassment, and (iii) discrimination in the workplace.
www.formalgrievance.com also covers topics such as:- workplace stress, workplace bullying, workplace harassment, sex discrimination in work, disability discrimination at work, pregnancy and work, health and safety at work, your employers duties of care for your health and safety in work. It also gives a break down of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
Entering The Grievance Procedure
In entering the grievance procedure, your employer ought to follow the acas code of practice. The ACAS codes of practice are guidelines for your employer to follow. However, the grievance procedure is no longer [statutory].
Just because your employer follows the acas code of practice, does not mean that it won't conduct a sham grievance procedure. This usually ends up with the aggrieved employee claiming constructive dismissal in an employment tribunal, due to the employer operating an unfair grievance procedure or acting in a capricious manner.
Employment tribunals receive a lot of claims for unfair dismissal. Claiming unfair dismissal in an employment tribunal is usually due to the employer treating the employee unfairly, where the employer fails to observe the terms of the employment contract.Claiming unfair dismissal is the last resort. The very purpose of writing a grievance letter is not only to invoke the grievance procedure, but also to collate the evidence which you need to bring your employer to an Employment Tribunal if necessary. Therefore, it is essential that before you lodge a grievance letter with your employer, that you know the do's and dont's of the grievance procedure - see grievance letter template aid.
The reason I recommend that you should purchase the grievance template letter aid, is that having written hundreds of grievance letters for employees, the grievance letter template puts your grievances in an erudite and articulate manner, and which encompasses the law germane to work related stress, harassment and unlawful discrimination, with express particular disability discrimination whereas the working environment has triggered either panic attacks or depression - usually both.
An employee who has been subjected to a systematic campaign of harassment and intimidation by working in a hostile and oppressive working environment, will often exhibit the aforementioned 'impairments' which qualify for protection under the auspices of the Equality Act 2010, as 'protected characteristics'.
Employee vs Employer
www.formalgrievance.com contains all the tools you need to write a knockout grievance letter to your employer. It also includes UK employment case law, employee rights and legal terminology, which I have placed in ["parentheses"] to aid you in establishing and structuring your own grievance letter. It is a must read]for any employee considering lodging a letter of grievance or employment tribunal claim due to either work related stress, work harassment, or discrimination in the workplace.
Entering the grievance procedure is like navigating a minefield, which is strewn with traps and snares to catch out unsuspecting employees' who fall foul of heavy handed employers. Disgruntled employees' lodge on average 5,000 Employment Tribunal claims every week, with numbers increasing year on year
Most employees who write a 'letter of grievance' to their employer [fail] to familiarise themselves with UK Employment Law. This is vitally important, and should be the first step undertaken prior to entering the grievance procedure and or writing a grievance letter. Establishing a well written letter of grievance will lay a solid foundation on which to build your case upon, in the event you need to refer to an Employment Tribunal or Court.
Employment law is complex, and I am not a solicitor. Therefore the content of this site is not to be construed as legal advice. However, having personally been through the grievance procedure and Employment Tribunal process, and successfully procured financial settlements, I want to share with you my own experiences, so that you can avoid the common pitfalls, which you will undoubtedly face during the grievance procedure.


text:
Moms and Time
What's your favorite free-time activity with your kids?
7% | Helping with homework. | ||||||
18% | Taking long walks/rides. | ||||||
18% | Bedtime stories. | ||||||
39% | Games and projects. | ||||||
19% | Other. | ||||||
770 Total votes cast. |
Top Polls:
Rewarding Good GradesIs it okay to reward good grades with cash?
Family History
How much do your kids know about their ancestors?
If your child were the victim of a bully, what would you do first?
Thanksgiving Main Course
What's the main course for your family's Thanksgiving feast?
Spanking at School
Would you support a policy of corporal punishment at your child's school?


text:
Availability: Ayre Hotel Rosellon
Please enter your travel dates.
Standard Room
- FREE Wifi
Wifi is included in your stay.
Special, City View
- FREE Wifi
Wifi is included in your stay.
Double Room Single Use - Room Only
- FREE Wifi
Wifi is included in your stay.
Special, City View
- FREE Wifi
Wifi is included in your stay.
4-star family-friendly hotel in Barcelona (Eixample) near Sagrada Familia
This family-friendly hotel is located in Barcelona (Eixample), close to Sagrada Familia, Hospital de Sant Pau, and Barcelona Zoo. Also nearby are CEM Maritim and Mercat dels Encants Vells.
Hotel Features
In addition to a bar/lounge, Ayre Hotel Rosellon provides complimentary wireless Internet access, a rooftop terrace, and complimentary high-speed (wired) Internet access.
Room Amenities
LCD televisions come with digital channels. Guestrooms also feature complimentary wireless Internet access, refrigerators, and air conditioning.
Information missing or incorrect? Tell us!Ayre Hotel Rosellon Amenities
- General
The hotel offers a snack bar/deli. A bar/lounge is on site where guests can unwind with a drink. This 4-star property offers access to a business center, a technology helpdesk, and a meeting/conference room.
Public areas are equipped with complimentary high-speed wired and wireless Internet access. Event facilities measure 883 square feet (82 square meters). This family-friendly hotel also offers a rooftop terrace, multilingual staff, and concierge services. Limited onsite parking is available on a first-come, first-served basis (surcharge).
Ayre Hotel Rosellon is a smoke-free property.
- Room service (limited hours)
- Air-conditioned public areas
- Total number of rooms - 105
- Number of floors - 8
- Breakfast available (surcharge)
- Self parking (surcharge)
- Business center
- Concierge services
- Doorman/doorwoman
- Dry cleaning/laundry service
- Elevator/lift
- Event catering
- Express check-in
- Free Wi-Fi
- Free wired high-speed Internet
- Dial-up Internet access - complimentary
- Snack bar/deli
- One meeting/conference room
- Parking limited (surcharge)
- 24-hour front desk
- Rooftop terrace
- Luggage storage
- Tour assistance
- Bar/lounge
- Laundry facilities
- Multilingual staff
- Secure parking
- Porter/bellhop
- Safe-deposit box at front desk
- Year Built 2009
- Meeting facilities size (feet) - 883
- Meeting facilities size (meters) - 82
- Smoke-free property
- Number of buildings/towers - 1
- Technology helpdesk
- Wedding services
- Internet
Available in all rooms: Free Wi-Fi
Available in some public areas: Free Wi-Fi, Free wired high-speed Internet
- Parking
Secure parking, Self parking (surcharge), Parking limited (surcharge)
- Room Amenities
- Connecting / adjoining rooms available
- Air conditioning
- Climate control
- Phone
- Refrigerator
- Complimentary bottled water
- Daily housekeeping
- Private bathroom
- Complimentary toiletries
- Hair dryer
- Bathroom phone
- Handheld showerhead
- Makeup/shaving mirror
- Welcome amenities
- Desk
- Electronic/magnetic keys
- Cribs/infant beds available
- Blackout drapes/curtains
- In-room safe (laptop compatible)
- Digital TV service
- Free Wi-Fi
- Soundproofed rooms
- Complimentary newspaper
- City view
- Dining
Room service (during limited hours) is available.
- Accessibility
To make requests for specific accessibility needs, complete the "Special or Accessibility Requests" section of "Trip Preferences" when you book your hotel.
- Accessible path of travel
- Accessible bathroom
- Roll-in shower
- Accessible parking
- In-room accessibility
- Accessibility equipment for the deaf
- Braille or raised signage
Ayre Hotel Rosellon Policies & Fees
- Check-in
Check-in time starts at 2 PM
Special check-in instructions:
A tourist tax will be collected directly at the property upon arrival. The tax applies up to a maximum of 7 nights per person per stay.
- Check-out
Check-out time is noon
- Payment types
Accepted at this hotel: American Express, MasterCard, Visa
- Pets
Pets not allowed
- General
Extra-person charges may apply and vary depending on hotel policy.
Government-issued photo identification and a credit card are required at check-in for incidental charges.
Special requests are subject to availability upon check-in and may incur additional charges. Special requests cannot be guaranteed.
- Fees
- Unless otherwise indicated, the charges below are not included in the overall room price. If not included in the overall room price, they will be charged by the property at check-in or check-out. Charges can vary, for example, based on length of stay or the room you book. This property told us they will charge you for the following:
- A tax is imposed by the city: EUR 1.21 per person, per night
We have included all charges provided to us by the property. However, charges can vary, for example, based on length of stay or the room you book.The following fees and deposits are charged by the property at time of service, check-in, or check-out.- Breakfast fee: EUR 12 per person (approximately)
- Self parking fee: EUR 16 per night
The above list may not be comprehensive. Fees and deposits may not include tax and are subject to change.
- Additional Details
Cash transactions at this property cannot exceed EUR 2500, due to national regulations. For further details, please contact the property using information in the booking confirmation. Children 2 years old and younger stay free when occupying the parent or guardian's room, using existing bedding. The property has connecting/adjoining rooms, which are subject to availability and can be requested by contacting the property using the number on the booking confirmation.


text:
By Steven Suskin
Tony, who died of AIDS in 1991, was arguably the most artistically important of the extended Redgrave clan, although some might nominate Vanessa or son-in-law Liam Neeson. He certainly provides the author with the most to write about. Lynn — the neglected, ugly duckling daughter — comes off best, although she doesn't receive much space. Vanessa doesn't come off well at all; at one point she all but deserts her children to make political documentaries. (While the family was full of top-rate actors, parenthood was reportedly not among the Redgraves' talents.) Adler follows the stories as they converge in a series of tragedies, culminating in the deaths of Natasha, Colin and Lynn within 14 months.
Reading between the lines, it appears that Adler — a journalist specializing on the film industry, with two prior Hollywood books — was a school chum of Natasha. He spoke with her about the book before her death in 2009, and broached the idea with Vanessa. The latter ultimately determined that the family would not cooperate on the project. No wonder, as things turned out. The book offers footnotes, but woefully few — leaving one to wonder just where the author is getting his (often juicy) information.
The 300 pages are unceasingly readable, although the reader might have some qualms. There is an unevenness, as suggested above; Tony constantly steals focus from all those Redgraves. Adler also displays a lack of understanding of things American, which wouldn't be such a problem if so much of the combined careers didn't take place over here. (More than half of the Redgraves — Tony, Rachel, Lynn and Natasha — moved to, and died in, America.)
24 Mar 2013
The merry Redgraves surely don't compare to the Barrymores or the Lunts, as royal acting families go. But "The House of Redgrave" — comingled with the house of Richardson — offers an enlightening snapshot of a fascinating but difficult clan.
(Steven Suskin is author of the updated and expanded Fourth Edition of "Show Tunes" as well as "The Sound of Broadway Music: A Book of Orchestrators and Orchestrations," "Second Act Trouble," "A Must See," the "Broadway Yearbook" series and the "Opening Night on Broadway" books. He also pens Playbill.com's On the Record and The DVD Shelf columns. He can be reached at email@example.com.)
Passionate about theatre books? See what the Playbill Store has on its shelves.


text:
Instantly downloadable Cisco CCNP Security Cisco PDF and exam engines.
The lifetimes access to 1800+ PDF will only cost you $149. This package includes all vendors and their updated exams.
The latest CCNP Security Certification dumps exam engine package will also provide 1800+ exams. Now you can prepare to Cisco CCNP Security Certification with the best material, in the comfort of your home.
Option 1: Cisco CCNP Security Exams and 1,800+ Others
Option 2: CCNP Security Cisco Exams and 1,800+ Others PLUS Exam Engine
Cisco CCNP Security Certification Practice Exams
300-206 dumps - Implementing Cisco Edge Network Security Solutions |
300-207 dumps - Implementing Cisco Threat Control Solutions (SITCS) |
300-208 dumps - Implementing Cisco Secure Access Solutions (SISAS) |
300-209 dumps - Implementing Cisco Secure Mobility Solutions (SIMOS) |
642-617 dumps - Deploying Cisco ASA Firewall Solutions (FIREWALL v1.0) |
642-618 dumps - Deploying Cisco ASA Firewall Solutions (FIREWALL v2.0) |
642-637 dumps - Securing Networks with Cisco Routers and Switches (SECURE) v1.0 |
642-647 dumps - Deploying Cisco ASA VPN Solutions (VPN v1.0) |
642-648 dumps - Deploying Cisco ASA VPN Solutions (VPN v2.0) |
Cisco CCNP Security Certification - CCNP Security Certification Test Questions
The IT industry is always in a flux. There are always new researches going on and subsequently new technologies are always emerging. The basic rule for IT is to keep you updated with the changes and advancements. All companies update their products, equipment, technologies and procedures. These companies provide hi tech equipment and technologies to hundreds and thousands of other companies. This is a complex web of demand and supply which constitutes the IT industry. The operations of so many of the companies depend on the equipment of other companies or the providers. That is the reason why any update in technology must be transferred to all of the customers. When it comes to networking solution providers, this becomes especially true. That is the reason why most of the networking equipment manufacturers and technology providers have these specialized certifications which essentially certify that this person is expert in this technology. The IT certifications are authentic proofs that the person holding them is qualified to handle the equipment or software mentioned by that specific vendor. The more and the better certifications you have the more closer you become to being selected at a good company. One certification that the world of IT recognizes unanimously is Cisco CCNP Security braindumps. The Cisco CCNP Security Certification certification is the single, the most powerful certification in the world, without any doubt. Those who are CCNP Security Certification certified know the worth of this certification and its power!
It remains a known fact the more and more people are opting for Cisco CCNP Security braindumps. The increasing popularity of CCNP Security Cisco braindump certification owes to the fact that it is very well received in industry. The Cisco CCNP Security Certification certification is a life saver for people who work in networking related jobs or people who are seeking jobs in it firms. There are very few certifications which are as famous and recognized in the IT industry as CCNP Security Certification. The CCNP Security Certification certification is recognized and accepted around the world in companies and regions of all types. From IT schools to multinational organization, you will find Cisco Cisco CCNP Security certified people in almost every type of organization. World over institutions have been taking in Cisco Testking CCNP Security practice exams certified individuals in for the purpose of having better and more qualified staff in IT and networking and have compatible employees as per the industry standards. When you are applying for a job or trying for a promotion, Cisco 00M-234 - test-inside.com bootcamp brain dumps certification can lead you to your long awaited promotion faster than you would imagine. If you have Cisco CCNP Security certified written on your CV then you will have a definite edge over other candidates in an interview or even when considered for promotion.
There are many ways of doing a certification these days. There are CCNP Security Certification notes, free CCNP Security brain dumps dumps guide, 642-185 brain dump, Cisco ccnp test dumps CBT, CBT classes, CCNP Security courses and what not. But these methods are expensive and time consuming. A professional does not need extremely lengthy notes or thick books to build his/ her concepts. Realizing the need for a quicker and faster method of preparation for it professionals and it students we have built the best gre review real exam practice tests in the world. Such CCNP Security Certification braindump is liked by every test taker since it builds on the concepts they already have, leading them to the core concepts in the CCNP Security Certification latest dumps. The CCNP Security Cisco brain dump we provide has concentrated material, which will help you cover the entire Cisco Cisco CCNP Security certification exam in really short time. Our CCNP Security Certification dumps have been the center of attention for test takers from the day they were released. This CCNP Security Certification braindump has helped so many people pass their Cisco Cisco CCNP Security exams and reach greater heights in their careers. ActualTests Cisco Cisco CCNP Security exam questions and answers have been perfected in every way, since throughout all these years that we had been working on these and making them better. Your CCNP Security Certification study will be quick and your Cisco CCNP Security Certification exam paper will not be a problem, once you are done your Cisco CCNP Security dumps preparation with our CCNP Security Certification braindumps pdf. You will not find any Cisco CCNP Security latest dumps ebook which comes close to our Cisco test CCNP Security Cisco dump.
ActualTests team is responsible at getting you the latest and most updated Cisco CCNP Security study guides. Actual Tests team consists your extremely dedicated and experienced it experts who keep the Cisco CCNP Security Certification brain dumps study material up to date. The CCNP Security Certification study pack is updated as per the latest update by the vendor. Because of the Cisco CCNP Security Cisco questions available at ActualTest site you can simply attempt and clear your Cisco CCNP Security test in one and only try. With our ultimate CCNP Security Certification guide and Cisco CCNP Security practice exams the CCNP Security certification you always wanted is only at a couple clicks distance from you. With the Cisco CCNP Security braindumps that we will provide you, you will be able to clear the Cisco CCNP Security Cisco certification exam with only a few days Cisco Cisco CCNP Security questions preparation. The free CCNP Security Cisco dumps or any fake Cisco Cisco CCNP Security CBT on the web which were used to prepare for the Cisco CCNP Security dumps Actualtests exam are no longer required. No longer will you waste your money and resources on Cisco CCNP Security free dumps classes and 1z0-820 courses. Now the Cisco http://www.real-exams.com/CCNP-Security.htm training courses have become a thing of the past because we are providing you latest Cisco CCNP Security Cisco dumps.
At ActualTests the material for your Cisco CCNP Security Certification prep is available in two forms. You will get Cisco CCNP Security Cisco braindumps questions and answers for Cisco CCNP Security Certification braindump preparation and Certkiller MB2-866 free dumps certification practice tests. But we will approach CCNP Security Certification question and answer material in a different and more effective manner. There are two methods with which you can do your Cisco CCNP Security prep. It has been over eight years since we are providing Cisco Cisco CCNP Security certification questions to the Cisco CCNP Security Certification braindump test takers. Our Cisco CCNP Security certification practice test and Cisco CCNP Security exam dumps are accurate and to the point. With the experience that has come to our team with time, we at ActualTests have learned how to make precise yet effective material for Cisco CCNP Security latest dumps certification exam. It was not possible without the efforts of our talented and trained staff and squad of product team. The first method which ActualTests offer for Cisco CCNP Security dumps preparation is our world famous use of our Cisco CCNP Security Certification test questions in the Cisco CCNP Security pdf. This is ActualTests basic package. It covers the CCNP Security Ciscofree dumps pdf and those of other exams as well. For the sake of simplicity we have named it package one. In the package one you will get latest CCNP Security dumps with the latest Cisco CCNP Security updates and corrections in the form of pdf. Thousands and thousands of our customers have cleared their Cisco CCNP Security certification exam, with the help of our package one. In package number two we have added exam engine to the package number one. So in package number two you not only get latest Cisco Cisco CCNP Security dumps but also get Cisco CCNP Security dumps simulation material. The CCNP Security Certification latest dumps simulations and CCNP Security Certification brain dumps pdf both cover Cisco CCNP Security Cisco dumps labs in the form of CCNP Security Certification exam questions and answers.
Other Cisco Certifications Included
Access Routing and LAN Switching braindumps - Access Routing and LAN Switching APE for Validating Knowledge braindumps - APE for Validating Knowledge Architecture braindumps - Cisco Architecture Program CCDA braindumps - Cisco Certified Design Associate CCDE braindumps - Cisco Certified Design Expert CCDP braindumps - Cisco Certified Design Professional CCENT braindumps - Cisco Certified Entry Networking Technician CCIE braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert CCIE Data Center braindumps - CCIE Data Center Certification CCIE Security braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (Security) CCIE Service Provider braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (Service Provider) CCIE Service Provider Operations braindumps - CCIE Service Provider Operations CCIE Storage Networking braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (Storage Networking) CCIE Voice braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert (Voice) CCIE Wireless braindumps - CCIE Wireless Certification CCIP braindumps - Cisco Certified Internetwork Professional CCNA braindumps - Cisco Certified Network Associate CCNA Data Center braindumps - CCNA Data Center Certification Exam CCNA Routing and Switching braindumps - Cisco Certified Network Associate (CCNA) Routing and Switching CCNA Security braindumps - CCNA Security Certification CCNA Service Provider Operations braindumps - Service Provider Operations Certification Exams CCNA SP braindumps - CCNA Service Provider CCNA SP Operations braindumps - CCNA SP Operations CCNA Video braindumps - Cisco Certified Network Associate Video CCNA Voice braindumps - CCNA Voice Certification CCNA Wireless braindumps - CCNA Wireless Certification CCNP braindumps - Cisco Certified Network Professional | CCNP Data Center braindumps - CCNP Data Center Certification Exams CCNP Security braindumps - CCNP Security Certification CCNP Service Provider braindumps - CCNP Service Provider Certification Exams CCNP Service Provider Operations braindumps - CCNP Service Provider Operations CCNP Voice braindumps - CCNP Voice Certification CCNP Wireless braindumps - CCNP Wireless Certification CCSP braindumps - Cisco Certified Security Professional CCVP braindumps - Cisco Certified Voice Professional CICSP braindumps - Cisco IronPort Certified Security Professional Cisco Specialist braindumps - Cisco Specialist Exams Connected Grid braindumps - Connected Grid Content Networking braindumps - Content Networking CRMAM braindumps - CRM Express for Account Managers CXFF braindumps - CXFF Field Technician braindumps - Field Technician Certification ICND braindumps - Interconnecting Cisco Networking Devices ICND 1 braindumps - Interconnecting Cisco Networking Devices Part 1 ICND 2 braindumps - Interconnecting Cisco Networking Devices Part 2 IP Communications braindumps - IP Communications IronPort braindumps - Cisco IronPort Certification Proctored Exams for Validating Knowledge braindumps - Proctored Exams for Validating Knowledge Sales Expert braindumps - Cisco Sales Expert SMB braindumps - Small Medium Business SP Video braindumps - Cisco SP Video Certification Storage Networking braindumps - Cisco Storage Networking VPN and Security braindumps - Cisco VPN and Security Exams Wireless LAN braindumps - Cisco Wireless LAN Exams |
Popular IT Certifications
Can't find the necessary exam? Contact us and we will prepare it for you.
All Major Credit CardsWe accept Visa, Mastercard, Electron and American Express. You can also pay us via PayPal.
SSL Secure Transactions


text:
Our beloved grandfather, Poppy Sol, started this business in an open-air market. Three generations later, we're still bringing smiles to our customers' faces.
Gummy Fried Eggs
Chewy and soft gummy fried eggs. These may look just like fried eggs, but we promise they taste a lot sweeter!
Customer Reviews
Leave online feedback and share your thoughts with other customers!
Denise, Coshocton, Ohio December 12, 2012"WOW, not only did I get my order ONE DAY EARLY, but they are so cute. The eggs are amazing and delicious and the pigs are adorable and also delicious! And, thanks for the sample of habanero pistachio nuts. YUM!!!"
clare l. gambale, swampscott, ma July 17, 2012"Luv te Gummy fired Eggs they arrived perfect TY for keeping cool."
Clare Gambale, swampscott, ma November 29, 2011"I am sooooooooooooooo Happy I have been looking for GUMMY fried eggs for eva Thank u"
Carrie, Metamora, MI April 27, 2011"We eagerly tore into our box...all ten of us. We tried the gummy penguins first, then the gummy eggs, then on to the dried strawberries, kiwis, and then the vegetable mix. Then we ate the chocolate colored raisins. Everything was delicious, and we figured we had tasted every food group! Well, the gummy eggs for the protein group IS a stretch! We all agreed we will be ordering again soon! Thanks for a delicious "meal" delivered so quickly! "
Sue, Frederick, Md June 30, 2010"Can't beat their super fast shipping and reasonable prices - I'll be back!!"
Clare, Swampscott, Ma December 21, 2012"Thank you, for my nuts and fried gummy eggs. Love the present Thank you , you Nuts.. Merry Christmas."
Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 41g (~1.4 oz.)
(Approx. 11.1 Servings/Pound)
Amount Per Serving | |
Calories | 130 |
Calories From Fat | 0 |
Total Fat | 0g | 0% |
Saturated Fat | 0g | 0% |
Cholesterol | 0mg | 0% |
Sodium | 20mg | 1% |
Total Carbohydrate | 32g | 10% |
Dietary Fiber | 0g | 0% |
Sugars | 21g | |
Protein | 3g |
Vitamin A | 0% | Calcium | 0% |
Vitamin C | 0% | Iron | 0% |
Glucose syrup, sugar, gelatine,sorbitol, citric acid, fruit juice concentrate (apple), artificial and natural identical flavors, vegetable oil (coconut oil/palm oil), colors added: yellow 6, titaniumdioxide, bees wax / carnauba wax)
Packaged in the same facility as peanuts, tree nuts, wheat, soy, and milk products.
Approximately 20 pieces per pound.
Store in a cool, dry place for up to 6 months. We do not recommend refrigeration or freezing.


text:
Videos > Nikita Von James > Dazzling Nikita Von James gets her hot pussy pummelled
My Friends hot Mom Ever whacked one out over your friends sexy mom? Here at My Friends Hot Mom, you can fantasise as these sensational MILF's are slipped up their slits by some fit dudes. Remember, age is just a number - and this number is HOT!!
Featured Pornstars:
- Nikita Von James


text:
OK so if you haven't heard about the concept behind Mick Boogie's new mixtape The Honor Roll coinciding with the VH1 Hip-Hop Honors then click here and catch up. Anyways the tape is finally out and it is bangin. This is a really cool idea and he got some of my favorite artists and producers to recreate the old and remix them. RAtheMC, Alchemist, A. Pinks, Donny Goines, Torae, Mickey Factz, Emilio Rojas, Marky, Skyzoo, Mazzi, Asheru, 6th Sense, Big Pooh, Kidz in the Hall and I could keep going but I won't. Phewwwww. The first joint I am going to put up is one of our favorite up and coming artists, RAtheMC spits some rhymes over Too Short's "Freaky Tales". The beat was recreated by Judah and both are from the DMV.
Click the page break to get a full tracklisting and some more tracks.
Kidz in the Hall remake Slick Rick's "Children's Story". Double-O provides the beats while Naldege rhymes over it.
Marky of the DMV and Phil Nash remake spit over Naughty by Nature's "Uptown Anthem". AB remakes the beat.
I could go on forever with this mixtape because it is the shit. The last track is A. Pinks and Emilio Rojas rhyming over the beat to "Buy You Some" originally done by Too Short. M-Phazes, another producer on the come up who I love, remakes the beat. Congrats to all those honored and thanks Mick Boogie and all the artists for the dope ass mixtape!
Tagged: A. Pinks, asheru, Donny Goines, Marky, Mick Boogie, mixtape, RA the MC, rathemc, the honor roll, Too Short, vh1 hip hop honors


text:
Coupons can not be applied to all brands, in some cases our agreements with manufacturers do not allow the use of Cymax coupons. If you have tried to apply a coupon to your cart, it could be that the manufacturer has chosen to restrict retailers from offering coupons for their products.
In other cases, the coupon you are trying to apply may have a price or category restriction, or both. Coupons from cymax.com have an expiry and many can only be used on certain products or categories.
Please note that coupons do not apply on past purchases. Coupons also do not apply on Buy At Your Price, the bidding option for customers to "make offer" for an item.
For more information about coupons, please call us toll free 866-740-9830, and talk to an expert.
The scale of this mirror makes it a visually appealing accent to a master bedroom or living space. The simple lines of the black finish beveled frame keep the look sleek to coordinate with a number of styles of decor styles whether your look is casual, transitional, or contemporary.
Simply fill out the form below to let your friend now about :


text:
Homecoming offers chance to reconnect | ULM Forum 10-21-11
Homecoming at the University of Louisiana at Mornoe is a tradition nearly as old as the school itself, welcoming back alumni and their families. As the university celebrates its 80th year, Homecoming activities over the next week offer a chance for the greater community to connect with ULM.
Turner |
Priscilla Turner, special events coordinator for the university, explains that events range from a golf tournament at Calvert Crossing to the return of the Homecoming parade to the campus.
Air Date:
Fri, 10/21/2011


text:
Imaginative icons
Creating icons is a necessary task for software developers, but they're not the only ones who make icons; average Joes and Janes also enjoy customizing their desktops with icons of their own creation. Whether you need to make icons for business or pleasure, Imagicon is a simple way to do it. It has advanced features for more-experienced users, but even newbies will be able to master its basics.
Imagicon's interface is just a small square with a few menus across the top; using it isn't an entirely intuitive process, but we were able to figure it out … Read more


text:
Western Riviera Lakeside Lodging & Events The Only Lakeside Motel, Cabins & Events Venue in Grand Lake, Colorado
Spring is the season of renewal and awakening when you may experience the first sightings of new offspring - moose, deer, elk and black bears - and welcome the hummingbirds back to their nesting grounds. Once again the Rocky Mountain Repertory Theatre, Chili Cook-off, hiking trails and activities on the lake begin to lure people to the mountains.
There's a lot going on all year long in Grand Lake. Check out the 2012 Winter Events Posters.
Western Riviera Lakeside Lodging & Events Venue 419 Garfield Street, PO Box 1286 Grand Lake, CO 80447 Phone (970) 627-3580 Email: email@example.com Website: www.westernriv.com


text:
NARS Single Eyeshadow
Compact, Baby Girl 1 ea
- Color
- Baby Girl
Baby Girl: Cotton candy with golden undertones and gold particles Longwearing, crease resistant color in sheer wearable formulas. All NARS eyeshadows can be applied sheer or layered for a more dramatic effect. These richly pigmented powders blend effortlessly and can also be used wet for precisely lining the eyes.
NARS Cosmetics, Inc. |
Talc, Polyethylene, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Zinc Stearate, Silica, Tricaprylin, Ceresin, Aqua/Water/Eau (Water), Lanolin (Lanolin Alcohol), Lecithin, Tocopherol (Natural Vitamin E), Disodium EDTA, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Butylparaben, Ascorbyl Palmitate (Vitamin C), May Contain (+/-):, Iron Oxides (CI 77491, CI 77492, CI 77499), Titanium Dioxide (CI 77891), Manganese Violet (CI 77742), Chromium Hydroxide Green (CI 77289) (CI 77289), Chromium Oxide Green (CI 77288), Carmine (CI 75470) (CI 75470), Ferric Ammonium Ferrocyanide (CI 77510) (CI 77510), Bismuth Oxychloride (CI 77163) (CI 77163), Aluminum Powder (CI 77000) (CI 77000), Blue 1 Lake (CI 42090) (CI 42090), Yellow 5 Aluminum Lake (CI 19140) |
Displaying review 1
Comments about NARS Single Eyeshadow Compact, Baby Girl, 1 ea:
I like this color a lot. You do not get that much of it, but with nars you rarely do. I thought it would have been a little brighter of a color, but it was more of a medium pink. It went on very sheer and I would have liked a little more coverage. I did like the subtle sparkle. It was cute without looking juvenile. It was a nice shadow, but I think for the money I was expecting a little more.
Displaying review 1