text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
February 26, 2009
JOYAL PRODUCTS, INC., PLAINTIFF,v.JOHNSON ELECTRIC NORTH AMERICA, INC. ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
Plaintiff, Joyal Products, Inc. ("Joyal" or "Plaintiff") filed this patent infringement action against Johnson Electric North America Inc., Johnson Electric Consulting, Inc., and Johnson Electric Manufacturory, Ltd. ("Johnson" or "Defendants") alleging that Johnson infringed on Joyal's patent, United States Patent No. 5,111,015 (the "'015 patent"), titled "Apparatus and Method for Fusing Wire." This patent relates to a particular method for making electrical connections in the production of a class of machines known as dynamoelectric machines, which includes electric motors and generators. Joyal alleged that Johnson infringed on the '015 patent by importing and selling in the United States armatures that were manufactured using the patented process.
A few weeks before trial, which took place in October 2008, Johnson consented to the entry of judgment of willful infringement of the '015 patent. Shortly thereafter, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff on Johnson's invalidity defenses and counterclaim. As a result, the only matter remaining for trial was the issue of damages. After a four-day trial in October 2008, a jury awarded damages in the amount of $4,598,184 to Plaintiff.
Presently before the Court are several post trial motions. Johnson has moved for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, a new trial. Joyal has moved for (1) an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, (2) attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; (3) pre-judgment interest; (4) a permanent injunction to 35 U.S.C. § 283; (5) an order setting an ongoing royalty rate; (6) an accounting; and (7) an award of its expert witness fees. For the reasons below, Johnson's motion is denied, and Joyal's motions are granted with the exception of its motion for expert witness fees, which is denied.
I. Defendants' Motion
1. Johnson's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law
Johnson moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of patent invalidity, arguing that claims 1-6, 8 and 16 of the '015 patent are invalid as anticipated under 25 U.S.C. § 102 and are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In support of its motion, Johnson first asserts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law "for the same reasons set forth in its Motion and Cross-Motion for summary judgment." Johnson further asserts that, in any event, it should not have been precluded from presenting its invalidity case to the jury even though it did not have an expert on this issue.*fn1 In response, Joyal argues that Johnson's motion is procedurally baseless and is nothing more than an improper attempt to seek reconsideration of the Court's summary judgment rulings on patent validity.
Under Rule 50, a District Court may grant judgment as a matter of law if a "party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue." Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1). If the court denies a motion for judgment as a matter of law during trial, the motion may be renewed within ten days of entry of judgment in the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b).
At trial, in the context of a Rule 50 motion, Johnson raised an issue regarding "the summary judgment of patent invalidity," arguing that the issue of validity should have been submitted to the jury. Trial Transcript at 675:7-8, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Michael Pospis ("Pospis Decl."). However, the issue of validity was not the subject of evidence at trial, the parties were not fully heard on the issue of validity and the jury's verdict did not address the issue. The Court denied the motion and, recognizing the inapplicability of Rule 50, stated that "[t]here was a summary judgment entered on the defense of invalidity. To the extent there is an application to reconsider that, it's denied." Trial Transcript at 675:19-21. Johnson's current motion -- namely, its renewed Rule 50 motion -- is similarly procedurally inappropriate, and appears to be little more than an attempt once again to argue the issues raised (and ruled upon) in the motions for summary judgment. Johnson's Rule 50 motion, therefore, denied. Further, to the extent that Johnson's motion can be considered yet another request for reconsideration of this Court's summary judgment rulings, that request is denied as well.
2. Johnson's Motion for a New Trial
Johnson alternatively argues that a new trial on damages is warranted because certain evidentiary rulings by the Court were allegedly erroneous and because an allegedly defective verdict sheet was submitted to the jury. Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part: "The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or some of the issues -- and to any party -- after a jury trial ... for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court ..." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(1)(A). Rule 59(a) does not specify the grounds on which a court may grant a new trial, but rather leaves the decision to the discretion of the district court. See Blancha v. Raymark Indus., 972 F.2d 507, 512 (3d Cir.1992) ("The decision to grant or deny a new trial is confided almost entirely to the discretion of the district court.") (citing Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 36, 101 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed.2d 193 (1980)). Generally speaking, courts have granted new trials in cases where (1) there have been prejudicial errors of law; or (2) the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. Maylie v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 791 F. Supp. 477, 480 (E.D. Pa.1992). Granting a new trial requires meeting a "high threshold," Grazier v. City of Philadelphia, 328 F.3d 120, 128 (3d Cir. 2003), and "[a]bsent a showing of substantial injustice or prejudicial error, a new trial is not warranted." Montgomery Cty. v. MicroVote Corp., 152 F. Supp. 2d 784, 795 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
Johnson first alleges that there were various errors of law with respect to certain rulings by the Court. When addressing this type of motion, a court "must determine: (1) whether an error was in fact made; and (2) whether the error was so prejudicial that a refusal to grant a new trial would be inconsistent with substantial justice." Bhaya v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 709 F. Supp. 600, 601 (E.D. Pa.1989). However, Defendant here makes little attempt to show how the alleged rulings were erroneous or to explain why the alleged errors were prejudicial. Rather, Johnson literally repeats the exact same arguments it raised the first time the Court ruled on the various issues. In fact, Plaintiff's entire argument in its moving brief consists of three sentences, the one of which merely incorporates by reference (1) its Motion in Limine to Exclude the Expert Testimony of Carl Degan; (2) its objections at trial to a certain evidentiary rulings; (3) its appeal of a decision by the Magistrate Judge; (4) and its objections in the Pre-trial Order and its Supplemental Objections. The other two sentences of Johnson's argument baldly allege that a motion for a new trial is warranted because "substantial errors occurred in the admission or rejection of evidence." The moving brief contains no further argument with respect to the evidentiary rulings and, as noted above, Johnson has not shown how it was prejudiced by any alleged error. As such, Johnson's argument fails.
Next, Johnson argues it is entitled to a new trial because the Court asked the jury in the verdict form to determine the reasonable royalty rate for past infringing sales as a percentage of sales revenue, rather than in cents per unit of infringing product. However, Johnson's own expert testified that a royalty for past damages could be expressed in either of these two terms.
Trial Tr. at 508. The expert also explained how converting a royalty expressed in cents per unit into a percentage was a matter of simple arithmetic. Trial Tr. at 508-11. Additionally, Johnson has made no attempt to explain the prejudice that could have resulted from the verdict form, and the Court finds none. Consequently, Johnson's motion for a new trial shall be denied.
II. Plaintiff's Motions
1. Enhanced Damages
Plaintiff seeks enhanced treble damages for Johnson's willful infringement of the '015 patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, a district court has the discretion in patent infringement cases to "increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed" by the jury. Enhanced damages are punitive in nature and are based upon the conduct and culpability of the infringer. Jurgens v. CBK, Ltd., 80 F.3d 1566, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1996). As such, the Federal Circuit has held that an award of enhanced damages requires a showing of willful infringement, a threshold showing clearly satisfied in this case by Johnson's own stipulation. See In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[W]e have held that an award of enhanced damages requires a showing of willful infringement."). Where "an infringer is guilty of conduct upon which enhanced damages may be based, the court next determines, exercising its sound discretion, whether, and to what extent, to increase the damages award given the totality of the circumstances." Jurgens, 80 F.3d at 1570.
In considering enhanced damages, "the paramount determination ... is the egregiousness of the defendant's conduct, based on all the facts and circumstances." Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. General Scanning Inc., 247 F.3d 1341, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc., 970 F.2d 816, 826 (Fed. Cir.1992)). The Federal Circuit has identified several factors -- referred to as the Read factors -- for courts to consider in making the determination regarding enhanced damages:
(1) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (2) whether the infringer, when he knew of the other's patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good-faith belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed; (3) the infringer's behavior as a party to the litigation; (4) defendant's size and financial condition; (5) closeness of the case; (6) duration of defendant's misconduct; (7) remedial action by the defendant; (8) defendants motivation for harm; and (9) whether defendant attempted to conceal its misconduct.
Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and alterations omitted) (quoting Read Corp., 970 F.2d at 826-27). Plaintiff argues that each of these factors weigh heavily in favor of trebling damages. Johnson, on the other hand, while arguing that three of the Read factors militate against enhanced damages, does not appear to dispute Plaintiff's position as to the remaining six factors. The Court will address each of the Read factors in turn.
i. Deliberate Copying
Plaintiff points out that there is no dispute that Johnson used machines made by Joyal to copy Joyal's patented fusing method without a license, and that it also made copies of Joyal's machines so it could replicate Joyal's patented method. Johnson admits this both in its answers to Joyal's interrogatories (see Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stephen Buckingham ("Buckingham Decl.") at 5) and by its silence in response to Plaintiff's arguments on this point. The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
ii. Lack of Good Faith Belief
Plaintiff argues that the second Read factor is "conclusively established" against Defendant by Defendant's own admissions. Pl. Brief at 8. Plaintiff points to the following as evidence establishing this factor: (1) Johnson consented to entry of an Order of Judgment of Willful Infringement, which notes that Defendants "admitted that they have no good faith basis to dispute that each of them has at all material times infringed" on claims 1-6, 8 and 16 of the '015 patent; (2) in 1995, Johnson signed a temporary samples license with Joyal in which Johnson admitted that "[w]ithout a license from Joyal, Johnson would infringe the ['015 patent] if they import into the United States the sample and prototype electric motor armatures" made using Joyal's tang top fusing machine, Buckingham Decl. at Ex. 3; (3) despite this knowledge of Joyal's patent and potential infringement, prior to the lawsuit Johnson never obtained any opinion of legal counsel regarding the invalidity or non-infringement of the '015 patent; see id. at Ex. 1, Interrogatory No. 3; (4) prior to this lawsuit, Johnson never conducted any investigation of the validity or potential infringement of the '015 patent, see id., Interrogatory No. 4. Johnson does not respond to Plaintiff's argument regarding this factor nor does it dispute the factual assertions above. Simply put, Johnson does not dispute the allegations that Johnson never investigated or formed a good faith belief that the '015 patent was invalid or not infringed. The Court, therefore, finds that this factor weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
iii. Litigation Conduct
The third Read factor requires to the Court to look at the infringer's behavior through the course of the litigation. Joyal argues that Johnson's conduct throughout this litigation has been "uniformly egregious," and characterizes the conduct as "that of a huge corporation trying intentionally to drive up unnecessarily the litigation costs of a small plaintiff corporation." Plaintiff points to several instances in support of its assertion:
(1) Joyal sought to amend its complaint in May 2005. Defendant opposed what appeared to be a routine motion to amend with arguments that Magistrate Judge Arleo characterized as "frivolous." Buckingham Decl., Ex. 4 at 6-7. Defendant's counsel even admitted to Judge Arleo at oral argument, "in all candor, Your Honor . . . I didn't expect you not to allow the amendment, in all honesty." Id. at 6.
(2) In July 2005, Joyal was forced to seek the Court's intervention in order to obtain discovery as a result of an apparent lack of diligence on the part of Johnson in responding to Joyal's discovery requests. See id. at Ex. 5. An order compelling Johnson to produce the requested documents was entered. Id. at Ex. 6.
(3) In September 2005, in response to Plaintiff's amended complaint, Johnson filed two motions seeking dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, and insufficient service of process. The motions utterly lacked merit, and were denied by way of an Order in November 2005.
(4) In December 2005, Johnson filed a Rule 11 motion accusing Joyal of impleading Johnson Electric Industrial Manufactory, Ltd. ("JEI") without basis. The motion was denied by the Court. The basis for the motion was Joyal's argument that JEI did not import infringing products into the United States. Plaintiff argues that this motion was frivolous because it ignored the fact that JEI's captive subsidiary, Johnson Electric North America ("JENA"), imported the infringing products as an exclusive agent for JEI. Moreover, Johnson later stipulated in November of 2006 that JENA acted as an agent under the direction and control of JEI when it imported and sold the infringing products, and further stipulated in 2008 that JEI committed willful infringement.
(5) Joyal argues that Defendant took positions with respect to claim construction that were "baseless." Pl. Brf. at 14. In particular, Plaintiff asserts that Johnson's primary argument with respect to claim construction -- that the term "fusing" involved melting -- had no basis in the patent or prosecution history and was contrary to the understanding of the term by someone skilled in the art of fusing. Indeed, in construing the term, the Court so found.
(6) Subsequent to the Court issuing its Markman opinion construing the patent claims, Joyal asked Johnson to supplement or correct its interrogatory answer with respect to the interrogatory that asked why Johnson believed it did not infringe on Joyal's patent. Johnson's then-existing interrogatory answer had been premised on a claim construction that was rejected by the Court. Johnson refused Joyal's request to supplement. When Joyal sought relief from the Court to compel Johnson to reveal if any basis remained for its allegations of non-infringement, the Magistrate Judge heard the parties on the issue. Johnson advised that it was not putting on an affirmative case of non-infringement, but instead argued that Joyal's allegations were legally insufficient to establish infringement. Buckingham Decl., Ex. 11. Notwithstanding this representation, Johnson later stipulated to willful infringement.
(7) Plaintiff argues that Johnson's identification of John Thomas, a law professor, as an expert to opine on the validity of Joyal's patent was "patently inappropriate" and "frivolous." Pl. Brf. at 16. Joyal moved to preclude Mr. Thomas's testimony from being offered at trial, and that motion was granted by the Court.
(8) Johnson filed a motion seeking to preclude Joyal's damages expert, Carl Degen, from testifying at trial, a motion which Plaintiff characterizes as "baseless." Plaintiff argues that the alleged "frivolous nature" of the motion is exemplified by Johnson's argument in that motion that Mr. Degen failed to account for non-infringing substitutes, only to have Johnson later admit on the eve of trial that no non-infringing substitutes existed. Id. at Ex. 13. The Court denied Johnson's motion to preclude. Although the Court also denied Joyal's request for counsel fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the denial was without prejudice to Joyal raising the issue again in a post trial motion.
(9) Joyal asserts that the motion filed by Johnson in May 2008 seeking summary judgment of invalidity was "frivolous." Plaintiff argues that the motion consisted of "nothing more than arguments of counsel providing unqualified and unsworn opinions as to the meaning of complex technical documents." Pl. Brf. at 18. Indeed, the Court denied the motion without requiring Joyal to respond, finding that the motion was "replete with arguments of material facts." Order dated June 17, 2008. The motion was denied "without prejudice to its being renewed by the Defendants at trial as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50."
(10) Johnson identified its expert on the issue of validity as Kurt Hofman. After deposing Mr. Hofman, Joyal learned that Mr. Hofman did not consider himself to be an expert in the relevant field, and Joyal therefore filed a motion to preclude him from testifying at trial. After Joyal incurred the expense of deposing Mr. Hofman and of filing the motion to preclude, Johnson did not oppose the motion and voluntarily withdrew Mr. Hofman as a witness.
(11) Because the withdrawal of Mr. Hofman left Johnson without an expert to testify at trial with respect to Johnson's invalidity defenses, Joyal moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Johnson's invalidity defenses and counterclaim. In response, Johnson cross-moved by renewing its previous summary judgment motion that had been earlier denied by the Court. Joyal's motion was granted and Johnson's summary judgment motion was denied.
(12) Plaintiff argues that Johnson's request to the Court to enter judgment against it for willful infringement demonstrates that Johnson never had any legitimate defense to infringement. Joyal points out that Johnson contested and litigated the issue of infringement for four years, only to abandon all defense of the issue on the eve of trial by stipulating to the entry of judgment of willful infringement.
(13) Joyal points to certain conduct of Johnson's counsel at trial. Specifically, while cross-examining Joyal's damages expert, Johnson's counsel repeatedly asked questions of a technical nature after being warned by the Court that the witness was not presented as a technical expert. Also, Joyal notes that the Court admonished Johnson's counsel during the direct examination of Johnson's own expert to "stop distorting the case, because you've done it more than once in the questions you put to this witness." Trial Tr. at 462.
In its response to Joyal's arguments, the Court first notes that Johnson does not appear to dispute the factual assertions by Joyal. Indeed, each of Joyal's factual allegations regarding Johnson's litigation conduct is clearly established by the record in this case. Rather, Johnson argues that its litigation behavior simply does not warrant an award of treble damages, pointing to certain district court decisions in which "the defendant engaged in litigation tactics similar to those Joyal alleges, but where the court found that Read factor three, litigation abuse, was either neutral or weighed against enhancement." Def. Brf. at 5-6 (citing TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d 500 (D. Del. 2008); IMX v. Lendingtree, LLC, 469 F. Supp. 2d 203 (D. Del. 2007); Collegenet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18887 (D. Or. Jan. 20, 2004).
The Court is not persuaded by the cases Johnson cites. While those cases do involve some level of misconduct, the Court, which has dealt closely with this litigation and its lawyers for over four years, finds the present case distinguishable. This case has involved, in particular, the consistent and ongoing use of litigation tactics by Johnson that appear to have been employed for the primary purpose of unnecessarily increasing the burden of this litigation on Joyal -- e.g., filing motions of dubious merit; taking positions that caused Joyal to expend resources and later withdrawing those positions. While perhaps in other situations courts have found that a few isolated incidents of questionable conduct may not warrant an enhancement of damages or may be excused as "zealous advocacy, genuine debate, and honest disagreement," Collegenet, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis at *38, the Court finds that Defendants' conduct in this case dictates otherwise.
Johnson also singles out its stipulation to willful infringement as a factor that should weigh against enhanced damages. Citing to TA Instruments v. Perkin-Elmer, Inc., 277 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Del. 2003), Johnson argues that stipulating to willful infringement, even at the eleventh hour, is actually a mitigating factor with respect to enhanced damages. In TA Instruments, the court enhanced damages by a factor of two rather than three because it found that "in the end, [defendant] stipulated to willful infringement rather than force additional wasted time and resources by requiring [plaintiff] to provide willfulness." 277 F. Supp. 2d at 378. However, the Court finds TA Instruments to be different from the instant case in an important respect. In TA Instruments, the court found that "neither party ... exemplified good litigation conduct" and, further, while the defendant's conduct was found to be "more reprehensible," it was "only so by a matter of degree." This is hardly the situation in the instant case, and the Court does not find Johnson's admission of willful infringement to be a mitigating factor.
Lastly, Johnson argues that the mere fact that "Joyal was successful in obtaining certain rulings in the course of the action does not establish that Johnson's positions were frivolous and abusive." Def. Brf. at 6. However, neither the Plaintiff's arguments nor the Court's review of the matter has taken such a simplistic view of the issue. Looking at the course of this litigation in its entirety, considering all of the facts and circumstances, and examining the merits of the various positions taken by the parties and the motions filed, the only conclusion this Court can reach is that Johnson conducted itself throughout this action in a manner designed to unnecessarily maximize the overall burden and the litigation cost to its adversary. Thus, the Court finds that Johnson's litigation behavior weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
iv. Size and Financial Condition of Johnson
Johnson is a large, publicly traded corporation that does business worldwide. Its most recent publicly-reported annual sales were over $2.2 billion. Johnson's damages expert testified at trial that Johnson's profit margin is in excess of 20%. Trial Tr. 591. Johnson's financial condition suggests that an award of enhanced damages would not impair its financial well-being.
v. Closeness of the Case
Plaintiff argues that this was not a close case in that Johnson stipulated to willful infringement and did not mount a serious challenge to the validity of the '015 patent. Johnson has not disputed this point. Indeed, this was not a close case. The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
vi. Duration of Misconduct
Johnson does not dispute Plaintiff's assertion that Johnson has been, since 2000, continuously infringing on Joyal's patent with knowledge of that patent. This factor, therefore, weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
vii. Remedial Action
Johnson also does not dispute Plaintiff's assertion that it has never taken any action that could be reasonably viewed as "efforts to mitigate or minimize infringement in any way." To the contrary, Plaintiff points out that as demand for the infringing products grew, Johnson compounded its infringing activities by copying Joyal's machines and increasing production. Again, Johnson does not dispute this point. The Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
viii. Motivation to Harm
In asserting that this eighth Read factor is met, Plaintiff points to Johnson's litigation conduct and argues that Johnson acted with a desire to inflict financial harm upon Joyal in terms of excessive litigation costs. Joyal argues that Johnson intended to make Joyal, a small company, abandon this lawsuit "after being driven into poverty." Pl. Reply at 5. Johnson responds that the appropriate analysis for this factor involves looking at an infringer's market conduct, not its litigation conduct, citing TruePosition Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 568 F. Supp. 2d. 500, 529 (D. Del. 2008), Church & Dwight Co. v. Abbott Labs., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49588 (D.N.J. Jun. 23, 2003) and other cases in which the Court referred to the market conduct or status (e.g., competitors, customer-supplier) with respect to this factor. The Court agrees with Defendant that the more appropriate analysis for this eighth Read factor looks to marketplace and not the litigation conduct, which itself is covered by the third Read factor. The Court also recognizes that it is likely that this factor would have more significance in situations where the parties have a competitive relationship, as opposed to a customer-supplier relationship as is the case here, because one competitor could potentially benefit from harm done to another. In the instant matter, whether any marketplace harm came to Joyal appears to have been inconsequential to Johnson. As such, the Court finds this factor is neutral in this case with regard to the analysis relating to enhanced damages.
ix. Concealment of Misconduct
Joyal asserts that both before and after this lawsuit was filed, Johnson affirmatively concealed its infringing conduct from Joyal. Joyal notes that in late 2001, after Johnson began infringing on the '015 patent, there was an increased demand for the infringing products and Johnson needed to increase production capacity. Johnson acquired one of Joyal's customers who owned a Joyal Tang Top fusing machine. Trial Tr. at 166. However, Johnson needed Joyal to rebuild the machine to be compatible with the Chinese power system, Trial Tr. at 167, and Joyal would not do so unless Johnson promised it would not import armatures made with the machine into the United States unless it first obtained a license. Buckingham Decl. Ex. 16, 17. Although Johnson had already been infringing on the '015 patent, Johnson concealed its ongoing infringement and gave Joyal the assurances it sought in an effort to induce Joyal to rebuild the machine.
Plaintiff also notes in further support of its argument that after this litigation commenced, Johnson failed to preserve records for the time period between 1999 and 2000, when Johnson began its infringement.
Johnson does not dispute any of the facts asserted by Plaintiff. Rather, it responds that there can be no concealment as contemplated by this ninth Read factor if a product is "sold openly," as it alleges was done in this case. Johnson cites Church & Dwight, Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 49588, at *5, Floe Int'l Inc. v. Newmans Manufacturing, U.S. Dist. Lexis 59872 (D. Minn. Aug. 23, 2006), and Nexmed Holdings, Inc. v. Block Investment, Inc., U.S. Dist. Lexis 45900 (D. Utah Jul. 6, 2006). However, unlike the present case, the infringing products in each of these cases were consumer products advertised and sold openly in retail stores. In contrast, as Plaintiff points out, the infringing product in this case was a component of a motor that was "hidden inside of the motor, which was hidden inside of a pump, which was hidden inside of a gas tank, which was hidden inside of an automobile." Pl. Reply at 6. Thus, the Court finds that Johnson's argument that it cannot be deemed to have concealed its infringement because the infringing product was "openly sold" is utterly without merit. The Court finds that this ninth Read factor weighs in favor of enhanced damages.
x. Conclusion as to Enhanced Damages
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds that a significant enhancement is warranted in this case. Indeed, there was an admission of willful infringement, no mitigating circumstances, and eight of the nine Read factors weigh in favor of enhanced damages. Therefore, the Court in its discretion concludes that damages awarded by the jury in the amount of $4,598,184 shall be trebled to $13,794,552.
2. Attorneys Fees
Plaintiff also seeks attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that courts in "exceptional cases" may award attorney fees to the prevailing party. Exceptional cases include: "inequitable conduct before the PTO; litigation misconduct; vexatious, unjustified, and otherwise bad faith litigation; a frivolous suit or willful infringement." Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1034 (Fed. Cir.2002) (citation omitted). Johnson does not dispute that this is an exceptional case, and given Johnson's willful infringement and its conduct in this litigation, and considering the totality of the circumstances in this case, the Court finds that this is an exceptional case warranting an award of attorney fees.
Johnson does assert, however, that the Court should eliminate or significantly reduce the fees requested by Plaintiff. Johnson argues that the fees are not reasonable, that a number of the billing entries submitted by Plaintiff are vague and that Plaintiff has not made any effort to eliminate fees for non-recoverable overhead. The Court has reviewed the Joyal's submissions in support of its fee request and finds Johnson's arguments to be without merit. Plaintiff has adequately supported its request for fees, and the Court finds the fees to be reasonable. Accordingly, the Court awards attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff in the amount of $1,589,956.07.
3. Prejudgment Interest
Joyal has moved for an award of prejudgment interest on the jury's damages award in the amount of $818,018 and prejudgment interest on its attorneys fees and expenses in the amount of $103,887. These amounts were calculated by Joyal using the prime rate, compounded annually. See Declaration of Carl Degen. In response, Johnson agues the (1) prejudgment interest should be calculated at the Treasury bill rate; (2) the court should award simple, not compound interest; and (3) prejudgment interest should not be awarded on Joyal's attorney fees. The court finds Johnson's arguments unavailing.
Section 35 U.S.C. § 284 provides for the calculation of damages "together with interest ... as fixed by the court." In patent infringement cases, "prejudgment interest should be awarded under § 284 absent some justification for withholding such an award." General Motors v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657, 103 S.Ct. 2058, 76 L.Ed.2d 211 (1983). Further, a court may award prejudgment interest on an attorney fee award where there has been a showing of "bad faith or exceptional circumstances." Mathis v. Sears, 857 F.2d 749, 761 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
"'The Federal Circuit has given district courts great discretion' when determining the applicable interest rate for an award of prejudgment interest." IPPV Enterprises, LLC v. EchoStar Comm'n Corp., No. Civ. A. 99-577-KAJ, 2003 WL 723260, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2003) (citation omitted). "Courts have recognized that the prime rate best compensate[s] a patentee for lost revenues during the period of infringement because the prime rate represents the cost of borrowing money, which is 'a better measure of the harm suffered as a result of the loss of the use of money over time.' " IMX, Inc. v. LendingTree, LLC, 469 F. Supp. 2d 203, 227 (D. Del.2007) (citing Mars, Inc. v. Conlux USA Corp., 818 F. Supp. 707, 720-21 (D.
Del.1993), aff'd, 16 F.3d 421 (Fed. Cir.1993)). Accordingly, the Court concludes that prejudgment interest is appropriate for both the jury's award of damages and the Court's attorney fee award. Prejudgment interest shall be calculated using the prime rate, compounded annually.
4. Permanent Injunction
Joyal seek an injunction to enjoin Johnson from continuing to infringe Joyal's patent. A district court "may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable." 35 U.S.C. § 283. A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1840 (2006). These factors are as follows:
(1) that [plaintiff] has suffered an irreparable injury: (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Id. at 1839 (citations omitted). Following this traditional test, the Court finds that the entry of a permanent injunction against Johnson is appropriate.
First, the Court finds that Joyal will suffer irreparable harm if Johnson is permitted to continue its infringement. Because Joyal has ceased its manufacturing operations,*fn2 the '015 patent is one of its few remaining assets, and Joyal would like to sell this asset. See Declaration of Allan Warner ("[B]ecause Joyal is no longer an operating business . . . [Joyal] would like to sell the '015 patent to the highest bidder, which likely would be an active competitor in the carbon commutator armature business.") Plaintiff asserts that allowing Johnson to continue to import and sell infringing products in the United States would irreparably harm Joyal's ability to sell this asset. Indeed, the most likely purchaser of the patent would be a manufacturer such as Johnson and, as Joyal points out, absent the right to exclude competitors from practicing the method covered by the patent, the patent's value would be diminished in a manner that would be difficult to quantify. Indeed, the "principal value of a patent is its statutory right to exclude." Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting Hybritech Inc. v. Abbot Labs., 849 F.2d 1146, 1156-57 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "The statutory right to exclude represents a tangential benefit associated with patent rights that cannot be quantified in monetary damages." Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova Inc., 520 F. Supp. 2d 537, 558-59 (D. Del. 2007). Furthermore, competitors of Johnson (and even Johnson itself) would have little incentive to purchase a patent that does not give them exclusivity.
Second, the Court finds that monetary relief such as on-going royalties would not be an adequate remedy in this case for the same reasons. Additionally, because Joyal is no longer an on-going business concern, it is impractical to impose what is in effect a compulsory license upon the parties. This case is unlike several others cited by Johnson in which injunctive relief was denied, as those cases involved companies with an ongoing business who widely licensed their patents, see, e.g., MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 556, 569 (E.D. Va. 2007) (noting that the plaintiff "continued to follow a consistent course of licensing its patents to market participants and is plainly willing to accept royalties and is plainly willing to accept royalties for future utilization of the patent"). To the extent that Joyal at one time undertook efforts to license the patent, this occurred several years ago at a time when the company was still in business. It is, therefore, not relevant to the Court's analysis. Presently, there are no licenses for the '015 patent nor is Joyal seeking to actively license the patent. Rather, as Joyal is no longer conducting business, it wishes to divest itself of this asset. It justifiably expects to be able to sell that asset for maximum value. Joyal's ability to obtain the maximum value from the sale -- indeed, the very ability to sell the patent at all -- will be materially impaired if Johnson is permitted to continue its to produce and sell infringing products in the United States. Because the heart of this impairment centers of the right to exclude under the patent, this impairment simply cannot remedied by assessing an ongoing royalty.
Third, the Court finds that balance of the hardships weigh against Johnson. In fact, Johnson does not point to any particular harm that it will suffer if it is enjoined, but instead baldly asserts that an injunction would "have a catastrophic effect on . . . Johnson" without any further specificity.*fn3 Def. Brf. at 20. However, as Joyal notes, the impact of an injunction of Johnson's business revenues would appear to be slight. Johnson's expert on damages reported that the sale of the infringing products represented "0.00% to 0.57% of Defendants' total revenues from Fiscal Year 1996 to Fiscal Year 2007." Supplemental Declaration of Stephen Buckingham, Ex. 26 at 36. Weighed against the harm to Joyal discussed above, the balance of hardships weigh in favor of injunctive relief.
Last, the Court rejects Johnson's argument that the fourth factor, the public interest, weighs against a grant of injunctive relief. Johnson supplies the infringing armatures to automotive companies in the United States. According to Johnson, if it is forced to stop producing and selling the infringing armatures, there would be a "catastrophic" effect on its customers, their employees and the entire United States economy. Def. Brf. at 20. However, as explained below, Johnson's claims are simply not established by the evidence.
In support of its apocalyptic assertions, Johnson has provided to the Court the Declaration of John G. Glynn, Sales Manager of the Automotive Products Group of Johnson Electric North America ("JENA"). Mr. Glynn's declaration is comprised in its entirety of twelve sentences. In his declaration, Mr. Glynn states that JENA sells monthly approximately 162,000 graphite armatures to automotive manufacturers in the United States, of which approximately 134,000 are used for the production of new automobiles. Each car manufactured uses one such armature. According to Mr. Glynn, JENA's automotive customers keep no more than a one to two week supply of the armatures inventoried, therefore, if JENA stopped delivery of these motors, the entire "supply chain running from fuel pump manufactures, to fuel tank manufacturers, to vehicle manufacturers would have to shut down production." Glynn Decl. ¶ 5(a). Mr. Glynn states that it would take up to three years "before a substitute supplier could be qualified under the governmental standards applicable to domestic automotive manufacturing." Id. at ¶ 5(b). Mr. Glynn therefore concludes that the "economic effect upon the automotive industry, including the employees that work in that industry, would . . . be devastating should JENA be forced to stop supplying graphite armatures." Id. at ¶ 6.
The Court finds a number of deficiencies in Mr. Glynn's submission. For example, conspicuously absent from the declaration is an statement that JENA is the sole supplier of these armatures to its customers in the automotive industry. Also, where the declaration references the time necessary to qualify a supplier under "governmental standards," there is no citation to any specific "governmental standard." referenced. Nor does Mr. Glynn state that he has personal knowledge of the supply chain of Johnson's customers or personal knowledge of their operations. Indeed, the Court finds the entire declaration to be self-serving and speculative. Mr. Glynn simply does not provide adequate bases for his bald assertions.
Furthermore, Mr. Glynn's declaration is at odds with other evidence in this case. For example, as Joyal points out, Johnson Electric's own expert testified at his deposition that automobile manufacturers typically keep a "short list" of competitors who are qualified to respond to submit quotations and proposals for replacement parts. Bratic Dep. at 141. Mr. Bratic further testified of his understanding that there are "a lot of other companies" in the carbon armature business, and that "any one of them" could supply Johnson Electric's customers with parts, because "as competitive as this industry is, there's no exclusivity." Bratic Dep. at 146-47.
Consequently, the Court cannot conclude, as Johnson asks it to, that there is a likelihood that the United States automotive industry would come to a complete halt for up to three years if JENA could no longer continue to infringe the '015 patent and supply a single part used in manufacturing of a fuel pump. As such, given the public's interest in the enforcement of patent rights and the lack of a countervailing public harm, the Court finds that this fourth factor weighs in favor of granting injunctive relief.
5. Post-Judgment Royalty
Joyal has moved for an order setting a post-judgment royalty rate for ongoing sales of infringing armatures from October 27, 2008 up until such time that an injunction issues and, further, to be applied in the event that an injunction may be stayed. Joyal seeks a post-judgment ongoing royalty rate of 26%, which, according to its expert, is Johnson's net operating profit rate for fiscal year 2006 (the most recent data available). See Declaration of Carl Degen. Johnson does not dispute the accuracy of Joyal's figure, but Johnson objects to an ongoing royalty rate in the amount of 26%, arguing that the Court "should maintain the ongoing royalty rate at the jury-determined reasonable royalty rate of 8%." Def. Brf. at 23. Because Johnson does not appear to object to the Court setting an ongoing royalty rate but rather objects only to the amount requested by Joyal, the Court will set a post-judgment ongoing royalty rate to be applied from the date of judgment through the date of the injunction, and which should be applied in the event that a stay of the injunction is entered at any time in the future.
In determining an appropriate rate, the Court rejects Johnson's position that the royalty rate determined by the jury should govern post judgment. Case law is clear that the calculus for determining a post judgment royalty is not the same as that for determining a reasonable royalty based upon pre-judgment infringement. The Federal Circuit has noted that because the parties' bargaining positions change upon a judgment for the patentee, an on-going royalty rate ordered as a remedy during a stay of a permanent injunction pending appeal should not automatically be the same reasonable royalty rate applied by the jury in determining the damages for past infringement. See Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("There is a fundamental difference ... between a reasonable royalty for pre-verdict infringement and damages for post-verdict infringement.") (citing Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("[P]re-suit and post-judgment acts of infringement are distinct, and may warrant different royalty rates given the change in the parties' legal relationship and other factors.") (Rader, J., concurring). Consequently, in situations where a district court finds that an injunction is warranted but the injunction is stayed pending appeal, the assessment of damages for infringements taking place after the injunction should take into account the change in the parties' bargaining positions, and the resulting change in economic circumstances, resulting from the determination of liability--for example, the infringer's likelihood of success on appeal, the infringer's ability to immediately comply with the injunction, the parties' reasonable expectations if the stay was entered by consent or stipulation, etc.--as well as the evidence and arguments found material to the granting of the injunction and the stay.
Amado, 517 F.3d at 1362. Given the equities in this case, and considering the various factors set forth in Amado that are applicable here, the Court finds that an ongoing royalty rate of 26% is appropriate. In this case, Johnson admitted to willful infringement of the '015 patent and it never established a serious validity challenge. Moreover, it is clear that Joyal has no desire to license the '015 patent, but seeks to sell it unencumbered by a compulsory license. A royalty rate of 26% is equitable in this case in that it would not allow Johnson to profit from any further willful infringement, and, further, would adequately compensate Joyal for being unwillingly deprived of its right to exclusivity.
6. Accounting
Joyal has moved for an accounting of Johnson's sales during (1) the period from April 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008, a period for which Johnson did not provide actual sales figures and for which Joyal's damages expert had to estimate Johnson's sales based on forecasts provided by Johnson in discovery; and (2) the period from September 30, 2008 through the date of any amended judgment, since Johnson does not dispute that it continues to willfully infringe the '015 patent and, Joyal argues, it is owed reasonable royalties for that time.
Citing Tristrata Tech., Inc. v. ICN Pharms., Inc., No 01-150, 2004 WL 769357 (D. Del. April 7, 2004) (accounting not requested in either the complaint or the pretrial order), Johnson argues that Joyal waived its right to an accounting by not requesting on in the Pretrial Order. However, unlike in Tristrata, Joyal did preserve its right to an accounting by demanding it in its Third Amended Complaint. See Third Am. Compl. at 10.
Additionally, with respect to the April 1st through September 30th period, Joyal sought this information prior to trial. However, Johnson's counsel resisted the request, and noted in correspondence to Joyal's counsel that Joyal "could always move to adjust the award based upon the royalty provided at judgment." Buckingham Decl. Ex. 20. Joyal states that because of this assurance by Johnson's counsel that the updated sales information could be obtained if Joyal was successful at trial, Joyal did not move to compel production of this information prior to trial. Given this communication between counsel, Johnson should not be now be heard to complain that Joyal has waived its right to the information.
For these reasons, Joyal's motion for an accounting shall be granted. Johnson shall provide an accounting of actual sales of infringing products sold since April 1, 2007.
7. Expert Witness Fees
Relying upon a recent Federal Circuit case, Takeda Chemical Industries v. Mylan Labs., 549 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008), Joyal has moved for sanctions in the form of an award of its expert witness fees, which total $108,598.49. In Takeda, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of a district court to impose such sanctions against defendants who engaged in "bad faith and vexatious litigation conduct." 549 F.3d at 1391.
"A district court may invoke its inherent power to impose sanctions in the form of reasonable expert fees in excess of what is provided by statute." Id. However, a district court should only resort to this inherent power in those cases in which there is "a finding of fraud or abuse of judicial process." Id. (quoting Amsted Indus. Inc. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 23 F.3d 374, 379 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See also id. at 1392 ("[A] district court may resort to its inherent power to impose sanctions only in those highly unusual cases in which the pertinent statutory remedies are plainly inadequate to address the misconduct at issue) (Bryson, J., concurring in part); Amsted, 23 F.3d at 379 ("The court should resort to its inherent power only where the rules or statutes do not reach the acts which degrade the judicial system....
[C]courts should only resort to further sanctions when misconduct remains unremedied by those initial tools."); Martin v. Brown, 63 F.3d 1252, 1265 (3d Cir.1995) ( "inherent power should be reserved for those cases in which the conduct of a party or an attorney is egregious and no other basis for sanctions exists").
Johnson's conduct in this litigation was sufficiently egregious that it supported, along with other relevant factors, an award of enhanced damages. Nevertheless, the Court does not find that this case is one of those "highly unusual" cases which warrants resort to the Court's inherent power to impose sanctions. Defendant's inappropriate conduct in this case is adequately redressed by the award of treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and the award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Plaintiff's motions for sanctions is, therefore, denied.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons above, Johnson's motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial is denied. Joyal's motions for an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; for attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; for pre-judgment interest; for a permanent injunction to 35 U.S.C. § 283; for an order setting an ongoing royalty rate; and for an accounting are granted. Joyal's motion for an award of its expert witness fees is denied. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
JOEL A. PISANO United States District Judge
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
Terracotta Base Hand Painted In Aged Black And Gold With Heavy Antiquing. The Round, Slightly Tapered Hardback Shade Is A Taupe Beige Linen Fabric.
The Lamps Mela Hand Painted Lamp by Uttermost from Becker Furniture World. We proudly serve the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota area. Product availability may vary. Contact us for the most current availability on this product.
Browse other items in the Lamps collection from Becker Furniture World in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Minnesota area.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Woburn 500
More >>
More info
- Vango Protex® 70 denier polyester flysheet, 4000mm HH - Highly waterproof, durable and reliable fabric. Exclusive to Vango
- Linked-in groundsheet - Easy to clean groundsheet that can be attached or detached from the living area. Simply roll under the bedroom area when not required.
- Flysheet and inner pitch together - Quick and easy to pitch and pack
- Patented Vango TBS®II Tension Band System ensures tent performs in adverse conditions, especially in strong, changeable winds. When tensioned, the bands brace the pole at 3 points, and prevent sideways movement. Adjust TBS®II to remove slack. Do not over tension, as this may deform the poles. Can be stowed away in calm weather
- Waterproof PE groundsheet - Robust and hardwearing fabric to stand up to the rigours of the most active campers
- Factory taped seams - All flysheet and groundsheet seams are factory taped, giving a water tight seal
- Toggled privacy curtains - Provides privacy when required, can be rolled away when not in use
- Lights out inner tent - Darker fabric reduces the amount of early morning light
- Bathtub groundsheet - Completely waterproof, 10cm base on the inner tent with taped seams.
- Vango AirZone - High and low level ventilation panels combine to create a comfortable flow of air through the tent. Air circulation is essential for reducing condensation
- Spacious ISO standard sized bedrooms
- Vango PowerFlex® fibreglass poles - Create strong, light and reliable structures
- Colour coded poles for intuitive pitching
- Easypack Carry Bag - oversized carry bag made from 15% more material with 50% more volume
- Cable entry point with tidies - Zipped entry point for power cable, with touch fastener tidies
- Lantern hanging points - Conveniently positioned in the living and bedroom areas
- High visibility guylines - Easy to see in low light conditions.
- High visibility guylines with guyline tidies - Attached at optimum positions for stability and tension. Handy guy line holders make for easy packing and re-pitching
- Breathable polyester inner - Allows condensation to pass through, for a comfortable night's sleep
- Part mesh inner door - Allows ventilation, whilst keeping bugs out
- Mesh flysheet door - One (or more) entrance has a full mesh door. Provides ventilation and keeps bugs out
- Diamond Clear windows - Maximise light and visibility.
- PE bathtub inner tent groundsheet - Provides a robust, high-sided, waterproof base
- Integrated eyelets allow optional king poles to prop open doors. Creates a canopy
- Inner pockets - Conveniently positioned pockets for organising essential items
- Toggled inner divider - Flexible options for sleeping or provides increased living space
- Fire retardant fabrics - Meets European EN5912 safety standard
- Weather tested to the European standard EN5912 by certified test centre
|Pack Size
|L64.0 x H29.0 x W31.0cm
|Tent Range
|Family Tents - Poled
|5 Person Tent
|Family Tents - Poled
|Pitching time
Pitching Instructions
Family & AirBeam Tent Additions
Check out the compatible additions for Vango AirBeam and Family Tents >>


text:
Lotus Temple and Accessories
Posted by DesertRat(US) October 31, 2012
Posted in DAZ | Poser | Carrara, Egypt, Scenes & Props
"The Queen looked out at the breadth of her Realm….. from the River to the Desert, it was all her's. Willed to her by the gods!"
Richly colored Textures by Judith Ward – Modifed from Elusion's Jewels of Egypt Package
Peeled UV Mapping
Semi-Modular Design – (See Configuration Samples Below)
Product Includes:
Lotus Temple Main Structure (Figure Based)
Conforming Front Vases
Conforming Large Back Vases
Conforming Plants for Front Vases
Conforming Peacock Feather Clusters for the Back Vases
Conforming Decorative Lotus Caps
7 Conforming Fabric Throws
Extra "Seat Only Figure"
Extra Floor elements to extend the temple.
Hide-Show Poses & MAT Poses for Throws


text:
Aloha! Welcome to my blog!
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Aloha and welcome to my blog! Please do not block me or vandalizing me. Okay, thanks!


text:
Dating Tips That Will Transform Your Love Life
by King Felix The Great
- #1317 in Nonfiction, Family & Relationships, Relationships, Love/Romance
- #113 in Nonfiction, Reference & Language, Reference, Weddings
Get eBook
- Your price$3.99
You'll see how many points you'll earn before checking out. We'll award them after completing your purchase.
Or, get it for 2400 Kobo Super Points!
See if you have enough points for this eBook. Sign in
Dating is now and again harder than it ought to be. After incalculable meals and beverages, it can entice to quit and leave to evenings of always...
Ratings and Reviews
Overall rating
Be the first to rate and review this book!
You've already shared your review for this item. Thanks!
We are currently reviewing your submission. Thanks!
Complete your review
Dating Tips That Will Transform Your Love Life
by King Felix The Great
Share your thoughts
Complete your review
Tell readers what you thought by rating and reviewing this book.
Rate it *
You Rated it *
Please make sure to choose a rating
Add a review* Required
Review *
How to write a great review
- Say what you liked best and least
- Describe the author's style
- Explain the rating you gave
- Use rude and profane language
- Include any personal information
- Mention spoilers or the book's price
- Recap the plot
(0) 50 characters minimum
The review must be at least 50 characters long.
Title *
The title should be at least 4 characters long.
Display Name *
Your display name should be at least 2 characters long.
Report a review
At Kobo, we try to ensure that published reviews do not contain rude or profane language, spoilers, or any of our reviewer's personal information.
Would you like us to take another look at this review?
You've successfully reported this review. We appreciate your feedback.
Dating Tips That Will Transform Your Love Life
by King Felix The Great
Thanks for Sharing!
You submitted the following rating and review. We'll publish them on our site once we've reviewed them.
by on December 05, 2016
eBook Details
- King Felix The Great, September 2016
- Imprint:
Smashwords Edition
- 9781370743063
- Language:
- English
- Download options:
- EPUB 2 (DRM-Free)
You can read this item using any of the following Kobo apps and devices:


text:
The Plaza at Waikiki: New senior living community in Waikiki with monthly rentals
The Plaza at Waikiki, is the first Assisted Living community designed specifically to meet the needs of Waikiki's aging population.
The Plaza at Waikiki, is the first Assisted Living community designed specifically to meet the needs of Waikiki's aging population.
The Hawaiian Telcom Tech Check question of the day is: What was your "first dance song" and why did you choose it?
Every Thursday, Dr. Kalani Brady from the John A. Burns School of Medicine answers your medical questions.
She says Kalapana is one of her influences.
The Hawaii Tourism Authority Pro-Junior event will feature five Hawaii standouts, including Punahou High School Senior Kyle Suppa. Suppa pla…
The Hawaii Tourism Authority Pro-Junior event will feature five Hawaii standouts, including Kaiser High School Sophomore Malia Nam. Nam play…
Honolulu police asking for help finding another bank robbery suspect. They say a man held up the First Hawaiian Bank on Bishop Street Tuesda…
Pomai reports.
LONDON (AP) — British actor Alan Rickman, a classically trained stage star and sensual screen villain in the "Harry Potter" saga and other f…
The PGA Tour continues its Hawaii swing with the opening round of the Sony Open today and thousands are expected to head to Waialae Country …
In September 2015, a Honolulu police officer's SUV was stolen while it was parked on the street in Foster Village.
The city held another public meeting Wednesday night to discuss adding more protected bike lanes to the one being used on King Street.
KHON2 has learned that not all of Hawaii's emergency sirens are operational.
Despite having missed two days of practice time while tending to what sources call academic obligations, University of Hawaii Point Guard Ro…
This recall is being initiated because some packages contain an oral dosing cup with incorrect dose markings.
The winning numbers were 4-8-19-27-34 and Powerball 10.
The 36-year-old has not played consistently on a professional level since 2010.
Aaron Valdes is listed as day-to-day with a right toe injury, while Roderick Bobbitt failed to make the trip.
The department will provide timely updates and answer questions from the community about the Hawaii Island dengue outbreak.
A Honolulu Police Department spokeswoman said the car was broken into at around 11:30 a.m.


text:
happy holidays y'all
anonymous asked:
Hello :3 I like forgiving Leaf Dads that betray people
happy holidays y'all
So, I have a trillion ideas and theories concerning season 6 right now and I have to spit them out so here you go!
-It can't be a coincidence that there is a polish family and Nazi werewolf in Beacon Hills. I think this is actually extremely significant.
-It's also significant that the alpha werewolf was badly burned before being taken by the dread doctors. It's why he uses Helium to aid his breathing.
-Elias Stilinski spent his time in the war quite literally "burning bridges." His job was blow up any bridges to halt movement of any kind.
-It's quite possible that said burned alpha Nazi werewolf could have been killed in an explosion set by Elias. Maybe?
-Most of the intro features clips from season 3, particularly the second half which was very much centered around WWII.
-Eichen House used to be the remnants of a fictional internment camp called Oak Creek, which held many Japanese and Korean people. Another connection to WWII and the victimization of a very specific group of people.
-The two people that Lydia has seen in her visions have been an older woman, quite possibly old enough to be a first generation survivor of the Holocaust, and an Asian woman who could be a 2nd generation survivor of the Oak Creek internment camp.
-In literature, trains are often used to symbolize a spiritual journey, a departure, or a journey to the afterlife. This would make the train station a sort of "inbetween" state for the souls there. For example, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Kings Cross train station is used in this way. It's the place you dwell in while your fate is decided. Will you take the train and move on? Or choose a different path?
-Historically, trains were used to transport the Nazi Regime's victims. Anyone and everyone outside their strict ideal of perfection was transported to concentration camps by train. Many 1st and 2nd generation survivors cannot stand to be inside a railway car or confined space for this very reason. It's interesting that they specifically chose a train station paired with the rest of the storyline.
-There's been a recurring theme concerning the human soul. Mr. Douglas is taking the pineal gland from the brain of his victims. As Chris said, it's considered the seat of the soul. Therefore he's stealing souls. In mythology The Wild Hunt sweeps through towns taking the souls of all those they came across. Two people in Beacon Hills stealing souls? What's the connection?
-The Germans have their own version of The Wild Hunt as well, which I think could be important. It's very similar to the Welsh/Irish one, but there are variations as to who the leader of The Wild Hunt truly is.
-Theories concerning the Sluagh have been very popular this season and I'm on board with that. The Sluagh is very much associated with The Wild Hunt and would easily fit into the storyline. The security system for the supernatural unit of Eichen House was compromised in season 5 when Stiles and Lydia visited Valyk in his cell. The Dread Doctors were able to enter, therefore it's very possible that the Sluagh could have escaped, especially as it can disguise itself through use of the faces of lost or damaged souls.
-It's very possible that fake-Claudia (I do not believe that she's really Claudia), is the Sluagh. Claudia suffered from frontotemporal dementia, which destroyed her memories and her reality. It's possible that her soul constitutes as as a lost or damaged soul because of the state of her mind when she passed away. Plus, remember how the pineal gland is the seat of the soul? Is it possible that her pineal gland was affected by the deterioration of her brain, therefore damaging her soul?
-Claudia loved her son. We don't know much about Noah and Claudia's life together prior to her death, but I do believe that she wanted and loved Stiles. If Noah's memory/dream is anything to go by, then we know that she wanted kids. The "Claudia" we've seen in season 6 doesn't fit the picture of Claudia we've been given. She seems possessive of Noah and somewhat aggressive towards all of the others. When Noah gets to the station and is told his wife is there to see him in 6x02, he seems surprised for a moment, even confused. The Wild Hunt may be able to remove people from reality, but they can't bring people to life. I think the Sluagh is using Claudia as a tool to halt the search for Stiles and the other victims.
-I have a theory about Claudia that I haven't seen yet and although it doesn't necessarily relate to the storyline right now, it could factor in later. Stiles has always blamed himself for his mother's death. But, why would he blame himself if it was the dementia that killed her? In season 5, in Stiles' memory/vision/dream from his past, his mother appears to be suffering from what Lydia would call "sundowning.' She has difficulty separating reality from the disease, leaving her vulnerable and lost. Before Stiles's dad appears on the roof, Claudia attempts to hurt Stiles and then accuses him of wanting her dead. During that moment, she's standing on the edge of the roof. I've always wondered if Claudia committed suicide. It would explain why Stiles feels guilty despite her death not being his fault at all. But, I could see Stiles blaming himself for being present in the hospital when her death occurred and I could understand his fears that his father would blame him as well. If that were true, it would be even more reason for the Sluagh to take her form.
These are just my ramblings and thoughts on season 6 of Teen Wolf. I'm a nutter, I know lol I literally just vomited my thoughts onto paper without even editing or reading over it, so hopefully this makes sense. If you have any thoughts on what I've said or just other theories and ideas, please send them my way! I'd love to see what other people are thinking.
anonymous asked:
Hello :3 I like forgiving Leaf Dads that betray people
when you accidentally skip dialogue you wanted to hear
Shipping is so weird. Like i'm in love. With their love.
When the miraculous holders you chose are just right
I'm so ashamed of this text post that I added Cloud's face to it
Victor & Yuri ~Stay with me~
I don't know what I'm doing but I won't stop.
(do not repost.) I did a brief study on Kindaichi's hair to show how it would look when his hair is down.
Isn't it awkward when someone asks you what your hobbies are/what do you do in your free time… like what should I answer to that? Watch animes and cry over 2D fictional characters? Stare at the ceiling all day long? Do completely nothing but exist? Make graphics?? Do you even know what graphics are? Procrastinate?? ?? What do you expect from me…
rivals from the crib
Sans is a weeaboo pass it on
Decades of artistic training has accumulated in this moment. Behold! My one true masterpiece.
Business Fish is my husbando~ <3 Gaze upon his handsome face and look deeply into those alluring eyes >////<
a taemin moodboard I guess
Hotel Transylvania AU
Part 1
You asked for this and I wanted to have more fun with this silly AU, so, yeah, I did it, hah ((decided to avoid drama and another characters, but just if you want to.. idk))
And, as always, bonus with
Dracula, oh, Gabriel: I broke him, im sorry, lmao
Taekook mermaid AU inspired by @artofennun's crossover!!!


text:
Don't expect to see any blue and yellow, double-decker buses traveling between Austin and Houston anytime soon.
According to KHOU, the route cancellation has something to do with "a legal conflict with two of the bus companies that contract with it."
With fares as low as $1 for select destinations, Megabus offers service from Houston to Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Galveston, San Antonio and New Orleans, as News 92 FM reported in May.
The six-year-old company, a subsidiary of Coach USA, bases their fares on a number of factors, including popularity of the departure date and time and the availability of tickets.
Also On 97.9 The Box:
The 12 Best Celebrity Eggplants So Far… (PHOTOS)
12 photos Launch gallery
The 12 Best Celebrity Eggplants So Far… (PHOTOS)
1. Lawd! "America's Next Top Model" Winner Keith Carlos' Eggplant Looks…Amazing.Source:Instagram 1 of 12
2. If Ca$h Out's Rap Career Doesn't Work Out, We Have Another Suggestion.Source:Instagram 2 of 12
3. Kevin Hart May Be Short, But His ________ Ain't.Source:Instagram 3 of 12
4. Nick Jonas Done Grown Up, Huh?Source:Calvin Klein 4 of 12
5. Trey Schlongz.Source:Instagram 5 of 12
6. More Body, More Bulge with Kevin Hart.Source:Instagram 6 of 12
7. We Never Get Tired Of Breezy's Man Parts.Source:Instagram 7 of 12
8. Good GAWD B.o.B.!Source:Instagram 8 of 12
9. Zammmmnnnn August!Source:Instagram 9 of 12
10. Jesus Be A Fence. B.o.B. & His Eggplant Are On Fleek.Source:Instagram 10 of 12
11. Gotta Love A Man In A Thong, Especially If His Name Is Jamie Foxx.Source:TMZ 11 of 12
12. Looks Like Bieber's Working With A Little Sumpin' Sumpin'.Source:SplashNews 12 of 12
comments – Add Yours


text:
THIS IS A DIRECTORY PAGE. Britannica does not currently have an article on this topic.
Learn about this topic in these articles:
feature of Ticino
...of lakes, chiefly parts of Maggiore and Lugano, and glaciers. The Lepontine Alps rise in the north, reaching heights of 11,161 feet (3,402 m) at the Rheinwaldhorn and 10,738 feet (3,273 m) at the Basodino. The canton is dominated physically by three river systems occupying steep-sided valleys extending from the mountain frontier southward to Lake Maggiore. The chief system is that of the...


text:
Good-For-You Healthy Cappuccino
Total Time
Prep 5 mins
Cook 0 mins
Adopted from the food section of our local newspaper
Ingredients Nutrition
- 12 ounces cappuccino-flavored yogurt
- 1 cup unsweetened soymilk
- 2 cups coffee soy ice cream
- unsweetened cocoa powder (to garnish)
- ground cinnamon (to garnish)
- Place yogurt, milk and ice cream in a blender and blend until smooth. Pour into 4 chilled glasses.
- Sprinkle with cocoa and/or cinnamon.


text:
Allen family pulls together to accomplish amazing things
When her daughter Janice was just four months old, Patricia Allen received some unexpected news that would change her life forever.
"I got a letter from the hospital saying she had failed her hearing test," recalled Allen.
"It was something that was pretty hard – looking at this baby for four months, thinking everything was OK, only to find out she was deaf. I just didn't know what to do."
Melton earns Eagle
Joseph Melton, son of Campbell and Richard Melton of Tunica, was awarded the rank of Eagle Scout in ceremonies Sunday, July 8, at the Tunica United Methodist Church.
Rotary Club's guest speakers bring information, fun
On a recent Thursday, when a regular program for Tunica Rotary's weekly meeting had not materialized, this writer recorded members reminiscing about all facets of the local club experience, from heritage to traditions, from projects to programs.
Of some 4,000 over the course of the club's 83-year history, two programs still stand out in members' minds: cited as the "worst program ever" was a slide show of dental problems and procedures presented by the late Dr. Tom Turpin; and the best, a demonstration of exercise techniques by a young and presumably nubile – and somewhat scantily dressed – young woman.
Board retains current health insurance
Insurance for county employees again made its way to the Board of Supervisors' agenda and brought personnel to the meeting on June 29.
The board opted to continue coverage by Cigna, with Velvet Bass as the agent of record. Beat 4 Supervisor Henry Nickson offered a motion to make Nick Floyd and Associates the agent of record for Cigna, but action on the initial motion to leave Bass as the agent lead to no action on Nickson's proposal.
Nickson said he was disappointed with how the matter had been handled.
He stressed that the Tunica County employee handbook highlights a chain of command for employees to follow and that it had been ignored. He alleged that false information had been distributed by employees, while they were on Tunica County time and that actions were "disrespectful."
More Articles...
Page 204 of 334
Latest News
Feuer Powertrain officially open for business Jackson, Miss. ...
Tapestry adds to heritage at Good Shepherd When the tiny mission...
Gaming shakeout throughout 1995 barely slows boom A shakeout that...
Local History: The Cotton Picker and the Exodus This week continues a...
Jerry Gentry to be honored The life and legacy of...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8


text:
Advocates for School Trust Lands has a new website.
This site will continue to stay active until December 1, 2016, at which time this URL will take you to the new site. We hope you enjoy the new site. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact our site administrator Tonia Day at email@example.com or call (801) 738-1109.
CLASS is now Advocates for School Trust Lands! Our new name and logo reflect our mission of helping states honor their historic commitment to optimize revenues from school trust lands and manage their permanent funds as an ever-growing, sustainable source of education funding. Thank you to all active members who participated in the re-branding vote.
Advocates for School Trust Lands is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing educational leaders and legislators information on the productive use of school trust lands and funds.
Mission Statement: School trust lands were granted to states at the time of statehood for the sole purpose of generating revenue in perpetuity for public education. Advocates for School Trust Lands helps states honor their historic commitment to optimize revenues from school trust lands and manage their permanent funds as an ever-growing, sustainable source of education funding.
We are parents, educators, school board members, state land commissioners, productive land users and others working to ensure a robust endowment for the benefit of today's schoolchildren and all future generations, as intended since the founding of our country.
To find out more about Advocates for School Trust Lands , click here.
CLASS: Rebranding Presentation
Due to technical difficulties we were not able to Live Stream our organizational rebranding. A taped video of the presentation can be found here. Thank you for your patience.
School Trust Lands Video: A Birthright Forever
Advocates for School Trust Lands has produced a short film about School Trust Lands in the United States. It explains about the original grants of land made to the states as they entered the Union, the associated permanent funds, and how the school trusts are making a difference for school children.
School Trust Lands
School Trust Lands are lands that have been set aside to generate revenue for schools. To find out more about School Trust Lands, click here.
Trust Lands in Your State
Click here to see an overview of trust lands in your state.
Follow @schooltrusts
We have a new twitter account. Our former handle is no longer updated. Come follow us at @schooltrusts.


text:
Rocky Patel Vintage 1990 cigars are handmade with a tantalizing blend of aged Dominican & Nicaraguan fillers with a vintage '90 Maduro wrapper. The smoke is medium-bodied, creamy, perfectly-balanced and teeming with dark, rich tobacco flavor.
$134.10 Retail: 160.92 Save $26.82
- Disclaimer
- The statements, views and opinions presented in customer reviews are those of the author and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of BnB Enterprise, product manufacturers, employees, or any other organization.
- BnB Enterprise does not warranty or guarantee the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.
A nice short smoke
A full flavored but smooth stick. Hints of earth and nut with a clean finish. Never harshes right to the last inch. A perfect choice for a commute or a long walk.
14.99 $9.99
246.24 $205.20
111.99 $74.99
63.99 $49.99
110.16 $91.80
207.36 $172.80


text:
Closed external CO2 reactor for aquaria up to 500 gal
This is a hermetically sealed reactor for the introduction of CO2 into large live plant systems. This powerful unit is designed to efficiently dissolve rising CO2 bubbles in strong counter-current water flow. The robust mounting plate enables it to be easily mounted outside the aquarium or inside the cabinet. Able to provide rapid CO2 introduction for systems as large as 500 gallons, the Reactor 1000 has proven to be a capable favorite among keepers of sizeable live plant systems. This is supplied with a strong holder. Accepts 1/2" tubing. Total height: app. 15 in; diameter app. 3 in.
Aqua Medic Aquarium Supplies
Aqua Medic has been a prominent name in the aquarium industry for over 22 years. The company was founded in Bissendorf, Germany and opened a North America distribution center in 2002 to better serve hobbyists in the United States and Canada. As the company continually introduces new products from the European market into North America they also provide excellent service for all of their products and carries a wide variety of replacements parts. Their open relationship with customers welcomes suggestions and user feedback. We carry a variety of Aqua Medic aquarium supplies including pumps, protein skimmers, light fixtures and accessories.
1 year manufacturer warranty. All warranty services are provided by the manufacturer
Accessories for Aqua Medic CO2 Reactor 1000
Similar Items


text:
An education policy bill that would change -- among other things -- the way in which multilingual students are taught in Minnesota schools is expected to be voted on in the House and Senate this week. The legislation aims to provide improvements in teacher training and support for parents of multilingual students. It also contains provisions that would affect high school diplomas and teacher licensure.
Full Story:Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.)


text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
February 20, 2015
EQT Production Company, Petitionerv.Department of Environmental Protection of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent
Argued January 21, 2015.
Publication Ordered April 29, 2015.
Court of ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
Robert L. Byer, Kevin J. Garber, and Leonard Fornella, Pittsburgh, for petitioner.
Dennis A. Whitaker, Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.
Page 439
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge.
Before this court are the preliminary objections (POs) filed by the Department of Environmental Protection of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (DEP) to the Complaint in Action for Declaratory Judgment (Complaint) filed by EQT Production Company (EQT). We sustain the POs and dismiss EQT's Complaint.
In its Complaint,[1] EQT states that it owns and operates natural gas wells. EQT constructed a subgrade impoundment (Pad S Impoundment) near a gas well pad in Duncan Township, Tioga County, fitted with an impervious synthetic membrane liner to contain impaired water generated from hydraulic fracturing.
On May 30, 2012, EQT concluded that the Pad S Impoundment was leaking into the subsurface and notified DEP. Twelve days later, on June 11, 2012, the Pad S Impoundment was completely emptied of impaired sludge. Upon removal of the water and sludge, EQT entered into a formal cleanup process under the Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act[2] and continues to remediate affected soil and groundwater.
On May 9, 2014, DEP sent a proposed Consent Assessment of Civil Penalty (Consent
Page 440
Assessment) to EQT. DEP alleged that discharge of the impaired water from the Pad S Impoundment violated The Clean Streams Law (Law)[3] and sought a penalty of $1,270,871. DEP's proposed penalty included $900,000 for ongoing discharge in violation of sections 301, 307(a), and 401 of the Law, 35 P.S. § § 691.301, 691.307(a), and 691.401.[4] According to DEP, civil penalties may be assessed for the passive migration of material in the environment after the initial discharge into the environment has ended.
On September 19, 2014, EQT filed the Complaint. EQT claims that DEP may assess civil penalties for only those days that pollutants were actually discharged from the Pad S Impoundment. EQT argues that DEP's interpretation of the Law, that it may assess penalties for ongoing discharge, is overly broad. EQT asks this court to enter judgment declaring that DEP's interpretation of sections 301, 307(a), and 401 of the Law is unlawful.
On October 7, 2014, DEP filed with the Environmental Hearing Board (EHB), and served on EQT, a Complaint for Civil Penalties (Complaint for Penalties) for the violations outlined in the Consent Assessment. That matter is presently before the EHB.
On October 20, 2014, DEP filed POs to EQT's Complaint, which are presently before this court. In its POs, DEP maintains that EQT has an adequate administrative remedy that it failed to exhaust and failed to plead or establish critical elements necessary to obtain relief.
In ruling on POs, this court must accept as true all well-pled material allegations in the petition and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. Wagaman v. Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 872 A.2d 244, 246 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). " Preliminary objections shall be sustained only when they are clear and free from doubt." Grand Central Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Resources, 123 Pa.Cmwlth. 498, 554 A.2d 182, 184 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Section 7541(c)(2) of the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 7541(c)(2), provides that declaratory relief is not available with respect to any " [p]roceeding within the exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal other than a court." " [W]hen an adequate administrative remedy exists, this [c]ourt lacks jurisdiction . . . ." Grand Central, 554 A.2d at 184.
EQT acknowledges that the EHB's authority to assess penalties under the Law is exclusive; [5] however, EQT argues that it does not logically flow that every legal question requiring statutory interpretation
Page 441
of the Law rests solely within the EHB's discretion. (EQT's Br. at 27-28.)
EQT maintains that declaratory judgment is proper because it provides this court the authority " to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations." Section 7541(a) of the Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 7541(a). " However, a party seeking a declaratory judgment must allege an interest which is direct, substantial and present, and must demonstrate the existence of an actual controversy related to the invasion or threatened invasion of its legal rights." Waslow v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, 984 A.2d 575, 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
Here, there is no actual controversy because it is the EHB, not DEP, that imposes civil penalties. In accordance with the Law, where a complaint for civil penalties has been filed, the EHB makes an independent determination of the appropriate penalty amount. Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 705 A.2d 1349, 1353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). However, " DEP may make a recommendation." Id.
DEP has merely expressed its legal opinion as to what constitutes a violation of the Law and how penalties for such a violation should be calculated. This case is distinguishable from Office of the Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014), upon which EQT relies. In Donahue, in determining the timeliness of an agency's response to a request for records, the Office of Open Records (OOR) announced its intent to interpret section 901 of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL),[6] 65 P.S. § 67.901, as providing all agencies five days to respond to a RTKL request, starting from the date the agency receives the request by any agency employee, rather than upon receipt of the request by the open records officer. The Office of the Governor (OG) filed an action for declaratory judgment challenging the OOR's interpretation of the RTKL. Donahue, 98 A.3d at 1225. This court granted declaratory relief, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court stated:
Of consequence is that OOR has adopted an interpretation of the statute in question and stated its intention to apply that interpretation prospectively to the apparent detriment of OG (as well as other Commonwealth agencies). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the Commonwealth Court properly exercised its original jurisdiction over OOR in this matter.
Id. at 1235.
EQT maintains that this case is similar to Donahue because DEP " has indicated that it fully intends to impose its interpretation of civil penalty liability under the . . . Law." (EQT Br. at 19) (emphasis added). Although DEP may interpret the Law, it has no authority to impose its interpretation of the Law on EQT. DEP, like EQT, is merely making a legal argument. Because only the EHB has the authority to impose penalties, and it may or may not agree with DEP's legal interpretation of the Law, EQT's allegation of harm here is merely speculative. " Declaratory relief is not available unless an actual controversy exists, is imminent or inevitable." Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Hafer, 142 Pa.Cmwlth. 502, 597 A.2d 754, 756 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) ( en banc ).
Accordingly, this court enters the following order:
Page 442
And now this 20th day of February, 2015, we hereby sustain the preliminary objections filed by the Department of Environmental Protection and dismiss the complaint filed by EQT Production Company.
Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.
Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text:
NuPIC Core
Core algorithms for NuPIC(the Numenta Platform for Intelligent Computing), implemented in C++
CellData class used in Connections. More...
#include <Connections.hpp>
CellData class used in Connections.
Description The CellData class is a data structure that contains the data for a cell.
|Data for segments that this cell contains.
Definition at line 162 of file Connections.hpp.


text:
Can you beat 8 highly specialized robots with your lightning fast reactions in this crazy paced quick draw robot game?
Either scripts and active content are not permitted to run or Adobe Flash Player version
13.0.0 or greater is not installed.
Press space to start/continue and the arrow keys to choose your counter attack!
Is this game not working? Any suggestions? Send your comments.


text:
Picnic prices on the rise
With food prices on the rise, the cost of your average Fourth of July picnic has gone up a bit. How much exactly? Let's take a look.
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Share this video
LMH South Therapy Services 785-505-3720
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services


text:
6,069pages onAdd New Page
this wiki
this wiki
Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you've made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Juric is one of Bair's gai'shain.
Bair tells Egwene and the other Wise Ones that Juric and Beira, two of her gai'shain, have refused to put off the white even though they have served their time as gai'shain. She has beaten them until her arm wearies, but no matter how many times she tells them to put off the white, they are back in their white robes before sunset.


text:
Reminder: She is FORTY-SEVEN. (Video still via Huffington Post)
Heather Graham wants "a president that didn't sexually harass any women, y'know?"
Trump's final campaign spot is dark, foreboding, hints at global conspiracy, dog-whistles anti-Semitism.
Married gay Trump supporters were among those who beat up a protester in Reno falsely accused of being armed.
Tom Daley squirms in a micro-Speedo.
Disgraced ex-Republican Rep. Aaron Schock spotted in the happiest gayest place on earth: WeHo.
VIDEO: Pietro Boselli demos how to remove a shirt.
Take it off! Put it back on! Take it back off! (Image via Model.com)


text:
Brown Miller Hotel Group is an innovative hotel and hospitality management company that is guided by the core values of integrity and hard work.read more →
Our hotels are located in greater South Texas, outlying areas of Pearsall, Carrizo Springs, Kenedy, Crystal City and Yorktown.read more →
Meet the team at Brown Miller Hotel Group dedicated to making sure your stay is as enjoyable, relaxing and memorable as possible.read more →
Brown Miller Hotel Group is a limited service hospitality group offering accommodations in South Texas.read more →
- Emphasizes high-quality service and facilities.
- Promotes innovation, initiative and creativity.
- Making quality products and providing reliable service.
- Operate newly constructed Hotels.
- Creative Marketing and Cost Efficient Operations.
Brown Miller Hotel Group is a hotel management company located in Beeville, Texas. Our company provides full management and consulting support to the hospitality industry. We have a proven record of developing high-quality hotel properties that deliver operational excellence and superior customer service. Our goal is to show our guests can get a spacious guest room at a great deal without sacrificing service or quality. Brown Miller Management Inc.


text:
Change Location
ACE Fit Share
Tighten your abdominal muscles and protect your spine with the most effective ab exercises from the American Council on Exercise (ACE). Learn proper techniques and step-by-step instruction from America's Authority on Fitness. This large collection of exercises is also featured in complete workout routines that include full-body and at-home workouts. Whether you're looking for beginner level training or advanced fitness programs, we have something here for everyone to target core muscle groups. Choose from a wide variety of lower ab exercises, standing trunk rotations, reverse crunches and more. If you have any questions or want to hear what leaders in the industry are saying, please see our Ask the Expert section.
Fit Life Articles
An estimated 27 million Americans suffer from thyroid disease and 13 million people are currently undiagnosed. Learn about the risks of developing thyroid problems and how you can help keep your thyroid functioning optimally by adopting healthy lifestyle habits.
You don't have to be a born runner or athlete to start running and enjoy the benefits of being physically active. Whether you want to run on a treadmill, outdoor track, road or trail, here are eight ways to get you moving from couch to pavement in no time.
Protein is a powerful macronutrient and without it, you might have more difficulty maintaining both your weight and consistent energy throughout the day. Here are six key benefits to eating more high-quality protein.


text:
Stuffed Mushrooms
Total Time
Prep 15 mins
Cook 15 mins
These are a great finger food.
Ingredients Nutrition
- 20 mushrooms
- 3 tablespoons butter
- 2 tablespoons finely chopped onions
- 2 tablespoons finely chopped red peppers
- 14 Ritz crackers, finely crushed (about 1/2 cup crumbs)
- 2 tablespoons grated parmesan cheese
- 1⁄2 teaspoon italian seasoning
- PREHEAT oven to 400°F Remove stems from mushrooms. Finely chop enough of the stems to measure 1/4 cup; set aside. Cover and refrigerate remaining stems for other use.
- MELT butter in large skillet on medium heat. Add 1/4 cup chopped mushroom stems, the onions and peppers; cook and stir until vegetables are tender. Stir in cracker crumbs, cheese and Italian seasoning. Spoon crumb mixture evenly into mushroom caps. Place on baking sheet.
- BAKE 15 minute or until heated through.


text:
Animal production systems in south-east and east Asia. Potential and challenges for research
AccessibilityOpen Access
MetadataShow full item record
Permanent link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/2832
Animal production systems in South-East and east Asia are discussed in the context of their potential and challenges for research to address poverty alleviation, increased food production and food security and environmentally sustainable development. The projected human population increase, rising incomes and changing consumer preferences will accelerate the demand for, and access to food in the future. This will place considerable pressures on the use of natural resources (land, crops and animals). Technological and socio-economic factors are the key elements that will drive components of the animal industries. The region has a