text:
- Authorized stock
- When a corporation is formed, it authorizes a fixed number of shares of stock in the company.
- The stock is assigned a "par" value that is quite low, such as 10 cents or a dollar per share.
- There is no correlation between the par value of a stock and its market value.
- Issued stock
- A corporation typically issues only a fraction of the number of shares that were authorized at the time it was created.
- This permits the corporation to issue new stock as needed.
- Outstanding stock
- The number of shares actually trading in the market
- Outstanding stock is equal to the amount of issued stock minus any Treasury stock.
- Treasury stock
- Any shares of issued stock that the corporation repurchases; a company might "buy back" its own shares for any of these reasons:
- The market price of the stock is depressed, and the company can repurchase the shares at an effective discount.
- Repurchasing the shares will increase the earnings per share since there will be fewer outstanding shares.
- The Treasury shares can be used instead of cash to make required employee stock options or retirement plan contributions.
- Any shares of issued stock that the corporation repurchases; a company might "buy back" its own shares for any of these reasons:
|Look Out!
It\'s important to be able to distinguish between authorized, issued, outstanding and Treasury stock.
Related Articles
What are Issued Shares?Issued shares are the amount of authorized stocks a company's shareholders buy and own. The annual report shows the number of outstanding shares.
What is Treasury Stock?Treasury stock is a company's own stock that it holds in its treasury for later use.
Getting Acquainted With Treasury StockWhen publicly traded businesses decided to buy back some of their outstanding shares, it becomes treasury stock. Treasury stock confers no voting rights or dividends, but helps boost shareholder ...
The Basics Of Outstanding Shares And The FloatWe go over different types of shares and what investors need to know about them.
What's A Company's Worth, And Who Determines Its Stock Price?A company's worth is the same as its market capitalization. Market capitalization is stock price multiplied by number of outstanding shares.
What's Your Stock's Repurchase Premium?Take a closer look at your favorite stock's statement of equity; you never know what you're going to find
Impact of Share RepurchasesShare repurchases can have a significant positive impact on an investor's portfolio and are a great way to build investor wealth over time.
Managing Wealth
What is Capital Stock?Capital stock refers to the number of authorized shares a corporation may issue, both common and preferred.
Introduction to Treasury SecuritiesPurchasing bonds that are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government can provide steady guaranteed income and peace of mind. Knowing the characteristics of each type of treasury ...


text:
Official Website Return to list Book Now
For seven seasons, actor Grizz Chapman served as Tracy Morgan's comedy sidekick aptly named "Grizz" in the award-winning television network series, 30 ROCK. The show, was a smash hit on NBC from 2006 to 2013, and was the recipient of multiple industry accolades including Emmy and Golden Globe Awards.
Now, two years later, Grizz's career is beginning to emerge from the small screen to the large screen, with numerous co-starring roles including the Adam Sandler/Dustin Hoffman/Method Man current theatrical release, THE COBBLER (2015) as Tino, Method Man's best friend. In addition, he recently started production of the highly anticipated Jodie Foster directed film, MONEY MONSTER, with George Clooney and Julia Foster, scheduled for in fourth quarter 2015, plus STEP 9 (2015), with Donnell Rawlings and Jordan Carlos (YOU TUBE) and the comedy short COMMON SENSE POLICE. He has also guest starred in other network television series, including BLUE BLOODS (CBS) and BLACKLIST (NBC).
Grizz is currently an owner of The Lair, a comic book store in the Bronx!
2016 Money Monster
Network Security Guard
2016 It's All About Me (Short)
Scott the Sommelier
2015 Mismanagement (TV Series)
– Pilot (2015) … Mack
2015 #Lucky Number
Bouncer at Decadence
2014-2015 Common Sense Police (TV Series)
Booby Von Dark
– Terror in the Skies (Animation) (2015)
– The Fanny Pack Prank (2014) … Booby Von Dark
– The Toenail Clipper (2014) … Booby Von Dark
– College Application (2014) … Booby Von Dark
– The Cropduster (2014) … Booby Von Dark
2015 The Blacklist (TV Series)
– Luther Braxton (No. 21) (2015) … Jenkins
2015 Alistair's Wednesday (Short)
Henry Finn Oliver
2014 Common Sense Police (Video short)
Booby Von Dark
2014 The Cobbler
2014 Are You Joking?
Big Pete
2014 Step 9 (TV Series)
– We 'Bout to Be Rich (2014) … Lupe
2013 Hypebeasts (Short)
2013 That Fucking Elevator (Short)
2013/I Home
Big G
2013/III Life of the Party
Fake Cee Lo
2013 Blue Bloods (TV Series)
Tiny Giondo
– Protest Too Much (2013) … Tiny Giondo
2006-2013 30 Rock (TV Series)
– Hogcock!/Last Lunch (2013) … Grizz
– Florida (2013) … Grizz
– Game Over (2013) … Grizz
– My Whole Life Is Thunder (2012) … Grizz
– Mazel Tov, Dummies! (2012) … Grizz

subset: commoncrawl


text:
beers 3302 º places 92 º 17:35 Sun 5/6/2012
Shoot the brewer an email. One of the only two stores in my town that got founders cbs took the whole case and sold it online only at double the price. Someone told founders about it and they told the distributor that that store was no longer allowed to carry any of their proudcts
places 1 º 17:43 Sun 5/6/2012
Originally posted by jmagnus87
I love hearing that.
beers 93 º 19:25 Sun 5/6/2012
I don't know, I had some 2005 Celebration from a cellared keg recently and it was worth the 10$ for a pour
beers 3 º 19:40 Sun 5/6/2012
Originally posted by eachnotesecure
Cellared kegs are almost always a hit but bottles..meh
beers 72 º places 5 º 09:45 Mon 5/7/2012
There's a local bottle shop here in Vancouver called By The Bottle that has a few select cellared beers for an increased price. I didn't put the word "cellared" into quotations because they actually have a legitimate cellar. As far as their prices go, they're reasonably increased in my opinion for the duration some of them have been aged. For example, they have a 2007 Abyss going for somewhere around $27. The only catch is, you have to drink it there. I'd prefer to take it home and enjoy it at my liesure, but honestly, I'll pay a little bit more to enjoy a beer that's been properly cellared anywhere!
beers 2 º 10:50 Mon 5/7/2012
I'm of two minds on this issue. I love the idea of being able to get my hands on a beer that is no longer commercially available but hate the idea of limited release beers being hoarded just so they can break them out later at a higher price. That said, if a retailer or pub wants to endure the cost of inventory on these items then that's their right. I think the question is, what's a fair price? I've had this conversation with a couple places here locally and the rule of thumb that they use is 10% per year.
beers 2878 º places 41 º 11:00 Mon 5/7/2012
The idea of cellaring does seem like a good idea at first for a beer store but honestly, it all comes down to demand and making the customers happy. I once considered it doing it but in regards to a limited release item, we just felt like it wasnt a good idea.
I'm all for this. Reason being that selling beer is a business, and business owners have the right to do whatever they want that's within the law. Since this is legal, it's a store owner's prerogative.
beers 2 º 11:38 Mon 5/7/2012
Bootsjohn, the 10% rule was just what I was told by two different places cellaring beer, one a retailer and one a restaurant. I have no idea if that is legitimate or not.
beers 6130 º places 345 º 11:40 Mon 5/7/2012
I think cellaring is a great idea, if done properly and done to beers that aren't uber rare. I think it can open customer's mind the possibility of cellaring beer. Remember very few people actually know that beer can be cellared.


text:
The Costs Of Terrorism For Pakistan
08/10/2016 3:44 AM IST | Updated 14/10/2016 8:30 AM IST
Namrata Goswami Professional Researcher, Writer, Traveler
On 18 September this year, 18 Indian soldiers of the 10 Dogra and 6 Bihar Regiments were killed at Uri in Jammu and Kashmir by four heavily armed terrorists who infiltrated the Indian Army base. In the crossfire, all four were killed but not before they had inflicted major damage. GPS sets were discovered on them tracing their point of origin to Pakistan. Indian officials suspect the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM) is behind the attacks. Incidentally, JeM is alleged to have been involved in the 2 January, 2016 attack on the Indian air force base in Pathankot, Punjab as well.
Terrorism can inflict enormous negative costs on nation states that enable such tactics for foreign policy goals.
Here, though, I want to show how terrorism doesn't just affect its targets but can also inflict enormous negative costs on nation states that enable such tactics for foreign policy goals.
There are huge "reputational" costs that come with an association with terror. The fact that Osama bin laden was caught hiding in a Pakistani military town, Abbottabad, that houses the prestigious Kakul military academy, did not help matters much for Pakistan's reputation. Osama's hideout was located just a mile or two away from the academy. Three years earlier, on 26 November, 2008, 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists travelled by sea from Karachi to Mumbai, and targeted several locations in the city, killing 166 people. During the three days of terror, the gunmen received "live directions" via satellite phones, from their command centre in Karachi. Today, LeT and JeM leaders Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed can move about freely within Pakistan's territory. For instance, Hafiz Saeed, the leader of LeT, involved in the Mumbai attacks, is allowed free movement within Pakistan, leads Eid prayers, and regularly threatens to strike terror within India.
The Haqqani Network, involved in terror strikes in Afghanistan, is believed to be backed by Pakistan's security establishment. The Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder states, "Pakistani authorities have long had ties to domestic militant groups that help advance the country's core foreign policy interests, namely in connection with Afghanistan and India."
To be viewed as a state which harbours terrorism is a huge reputational cost, with direct negative consequences for its citizens.
Terrorism heightens regional tensions. In the immediate aftermath of the Uri attacks, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi cancelled his presence at the 19th SAARC summit scheduled to be held in Islamabad in November. This was followed by cancellations from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, and reservations expressed by Sri Lanka. Consequently, Pakistan cancelled the summit.
To be viewed as a state which harbours terrorism is a huge reputational cost, with direct negative consequences for its citizens.
In his book, Magnificent Delusions, Hussain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US, states, "My countrymen will someday have to come to terms with global realities. Pakistan cannot become a regional leader in South Asia while it supports terrorism." There are deep seated concerns of "insider threats" within Pakistan that could press the nuclear button. For instance, the 2011 Mehran naval base attacks near Karachi had all the hallmarks on an "inside job." It was discovered then that radical Islamic groups like Hizb ut-Tahrirestablished links with high ranking Pakistani military officials. These "links" raised concerns internationally as to whether Pakistan's nuclear weapons are safe.
Another cost of terror is conflict escalation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Post Uri, on 27 September, 2016, Indian special forces crossed the Line of Control (LoC) into Pakistan, with specific intelligence on terror bases and claimed to have succeeded in erasing six terror sites. While Pakistan denied that the "surgical strikes" occurred, they were confirmed by the Indian Director General Military Operations (DGMO), Lt Gen Ranbir Singh. It is highly inconceivable that India would risk its international reputation by officially announcing such surgical strikes if they did not take place. Any escalation of conflict between two nuclear armed nations, of course, is viewed with deep concern by the international community.
Incidentally, there is a "strategic belief" held within Pakistan that a country could utilize "terror strikes" within the safety of the nuclear umbrella and escape unpunished. The Indian response to Uri signalled to Pakistan that its belief that terrorism will "help advance the country's core foreign policy interests, namely in connection with Afghanistan and India" is not without costs.
Memento Mori by Pablo Bartholomew
Get top stories and blog posts emailed to me each day. Newsletters may offer personalized content or advertisements. Learn more


text:
The EURASIA Journal is switching to ScholarOne (from Thomson Reuters) manuscript submission and journal management system very soon. Thanks to the long ranging efforts of the editorial team we are expecting a swift transition.
The status of formerly submitted papers will not be effected.
Please accept our apologies for any inconveniences.
EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education is peer-reviewed and published 12 times in a year. The Journal is an Open Access Journal.
ISSN: 1305-8223 (electronic) 1305-8215 (print)
Publisher: iSER Journals (Modestum LTD)
2014 Impact Factor 1.016
Ranking: 76/224 (Education & Educational Research)
© 2015 Thomson Reuters, 2014 Journal Citation Reports®
New Website Released
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new website for EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education.The new site has been a development based on the feedback provided by Bentus, Poland.


text:
Cute elderly newlyweds prove it's never too late for love
At 88 and 90, they've just got hitched.
At 88 and 90, they've just got hitched.
Those initial reports were false, and we're all still reeling.
During a group wedding ceremony on Sunday in Nanjing, the capital of China's Jiangsu province, 15 dog couples got married -- though the sound of barking may have overpowered the bridal march.


text:
The latest Audi A4 variant to be released here is the V6 3.0-litre turbo-diesel (or TDI) version with quattro all-wheel-drive and Tiptronic six-speed auto.
What do you get?
Due to the green threshold in the new luxury car tax, the A4 3.0 TDI now undercuts its 3.2FSI petrol model. At $86,058, the 3.0TDI undercuts the $95,956 Benz C320 CDI Avantgarde but not BMW's $75,888 520d.
Standard A4 3.0 TDI equipment includes leather trim, tri-zone climate control, xenon headlights, 10-speaker six-CD audio, alloy wheels, keyless entry and start, powered front seats, an electric parking brake and Bluetooth. But sat-nav should be standard. We'd prefer a full-sized rather than temporary spare.
What's inside?
The interior of the A4 is both tasteful and spacious. Rear adult passengers have no problem with knee and leg space.
Storage is merely adequate, as there are no seatback pockets. There are door bins (front and back) with bottleholders and a fold-down centre armrest. Split-fold rear seats increase boot size from 480 litres to 962. Four D-rings act as tie-down points.
The dash's centre stack is dominated by the media screen and MIM mouse controller,although without sat-nav it seems overkill.
The front seats are large, comfortable and bolstered, but also quite broad, so there's some movement in corners. The steering wheel is manually reach and rake adjustableand the driver's seat fully power-adjustable.


text:
MOVIE SYNOPSIS [ General Audiences ] With an impeccable performance of Florin Anghel, this film directed by Alin Gurita was premiered in cinema in 2014. The film "Posada 1330" had an original production of Romania. You can watch Posada 1330 online on TV cable or theaters with original audio in Romanian at different dates. This film premiered in theaters in 2014.
Rating: 5 by 10 users./
Runtime: 15 minutes
Florin Anghel, Cosmin Tudoran, Nicholas Lupu, Mihai Cotei, Mihai Csaby, Jan Ogrean, Dragos Marica, Bogdan Mot, Marius Vlad and Radu Popa.
15-minute film (full movie) directed by Alin Gurita.
The original audio of Posada 1330 has dialogues in or Romanian, it was produced in Romania.
It premiered in cinemas or television in 2014.
Screenplay written by Florin Anghel.
Liviu Dinu.
Florin Danilov, Florin Anghel and Dragos Marica.
This film was produced and / or financed by Umbra Studio.
Composed by Epic North Music.
Pixelatul Studios.
Without commercial breaks, the full movie Posada 1330 has a duration of 15 minutes; the official trailer can be watched in streaming on the Internet. You can watch this full movie free in English or Romanian in movie TV channels, renting the DVD or with VoD services (Video On Demand player, Hulu) and PPV (Pay Per View, Netflix).
See the page of this full movie, Posada 1330 in FULLTV Movies.


text:
Silent Witness Releases Indoor Modular CCTV Camera Line
The new cost-competitive ValeoView line offers one highly versatile housing which instantly converts to flush or surface mount, 16 different camera boards and 6 lens options.
SURREY, BC, December 3, 2003 - Silent Witness announces that it has released an indoor -only tamper resistant modular camera line, ValeoView™ i10 to complement its line of indoor/outdoor vandal resistant modular cameras, MagnaView® and PrimaView™. The new cost -competitive ValeoView line offers one highly versatile housing which instantly converts to flush or surface mount, 16 different camera boards and 6 lens options. As each component is packaged separately, customers can choose from 96 different camera combinations right at the point -of -purchase.
The ValeoView line is ideal for offices, banks, retail establishments, restaurants, hotels, and commercial and residential buildings. The cameras are available in high or standard resolution monochrome, color and True Day/Night (TDN) and offer the full range of Quick Change Lenses from 2.9mm to 16mm. Line lock comes standard with the monochrome and True Day/Night boards and is optional with the color. For a wider field of view, the '3D' gimbal provides maximum lens rotation and placement. In the future, other housings and the vari -focal auto -iris lens will be added to the ValeoView line for increased flexibility.
About Silent Witness Modular Camera System: In 3 easy steps, customers can build their preferred combination of housing, camera board and lens at the point -of -purchase. The housings can quickly be installed and wired before the gimbal, camera board and lens are snapped in. The MagnaView, PrimaView, and ValeoView lines are offered in the modular format.
About Silent Witness:
Silent Witness Enterprises Ltd. (NASDAQ: SILW / TSX: SWE) designs and manufactures a full range of video monitoring technology for the global marketplace. Founded in 1986 and headquartered in Surrey, BC, Silent Witness is a leading provider of high -performance closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras, digital and analog storage solutions, and network -based remote video surveillance worldwide. Visit www.silentwitness.com.
ValeoView™ and PrimaView™ are trademarks and Silent Witness® and MagnaView® are registered trademarks of Silent Witness Enterprises Ltd.


text:
- Ziv Glazberg, Patent Attorney and Advocate (Ziv Glazberg), a Partner atG&A Glazberg, Applebaum & Co., a law and patent firm, will speak on "Patent Protection for Software";
- Eran Bareket, Advocate (Eran Bareket), a Senior Partner at Gilat, Bareket & Co. of the Reinhold Cohn Group, a law and patent firm, will speak on "Copyright for Software – Protection and Exceptions";
- Haim Ravia, Advocate (Haim Ravia), a Senior Partner, Chair of the Internet, Cyber & Copyright Group at Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, a law and patent firm, will speak on "Alternative Use of Copyrights in Software and Digital Content"
LES Event on Copyright for SoftwareJanuary 17, 2017
Novartis Patent Application Struck Down In Israel OppositionJanuary 11, 2017
Israel Patent Application No. 174082 to Novartis is titled "METHANESULFONATE SALT OF N – PHENYL – 2 – PYRIMIDINEAMINE DERIVATIVE, PROCESS FOR ITS PREPARATION AND USE THEREOF FOR THE PREPARATION OF A TABLET CONTAINING THE SAME".
On allowance, Teva Opposed the patent. This decision relates to the utility requirements and to double patenting.
The Israel Application is a divisional application of IL 133906 which is a national phase entry of PCT/EP1998/004427, claims priority from a Swiss application filed back in 2007. The case published as allowed at the end of May 2010, and an Opposition was filed by Teva on 28 August 2010.
Following Statements of Case from the parties, Novartis submitted a request to correct the claims, and narrowed the scope of claim 1, adding a dependent claim 2. This somewhat delayed the proceedings. In May 2012, the Applicant requested a further amendment to narrow the scope of claim 1. (During Opposition, and indeed after grant, claims may be narrowed, so long as doing so is clearly a narrowing in all cases).
Teva did not object to either amendments and submitted an amended statement of case in June 2013. Novartis responded in September 2013 and by November 2014 both sides had submitted their evidence.
Teva submitted an expert opinion by Dr. Mark Zakrzewski and Novartis filed expert opinions from Dr. Simon Bates and from Patent Attorney Dr. Gail Volman. However, in lieu of a hearing, the parties agreed that the Commissioner would rule on the case based on the submissions, and, following his agreement to so doing, the parties filed their summary statements and counter statements.
The subject matter of the patent is Imatinib (N-phenyl-2- pyrimidine-amine) which was developed in Ciba Geigy, later Novartis, and is marketed as Gleevec® in the U.S. or Glivec® in some other countries. It is a competitive tyrosine-kinase inhibitor used in the treatment of some types of cancers, most notably Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML).
(An opposition was lodged against the application in India by several Indian generic drug manufacturers including NATCO Pharma Ltd., CIPLA Ltd. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., Hetro Drugs Ltd. and also by the Cancer Patients Aid Association. On April 1st, 2013 the Supreme Court of India dismissed Novartis' patent application, so there are generic versions of the drug on the market. in India and the majority of the patients – 300,000 patients – are treated by the generic versions).
In Glivec, the Imatinib Methanesulfonate is found in the Beta polymorph which differs from the needle-like alpha polymorph and this affects various physical properties.
After the amendments described above, the claim set consisted of five claims, the first being independent. The main claim is directed to non-needle-shaped crystals having certain diffraction peaks as follows:
Claim 2 adds additional characteristic XRay diffraction peaks. Claims 3 and 4 respectively relate to capsules and tablets comprising the beta polymorph and claim 5 relates to a method of fabricating the tables of claim 4.
The Opposer's Statement of Case
The Opposer notes that the specification provides support for a material comprising at least 90% of a specific (beta) salt defined by a spectrum of peaks. The main claim, by merely specifying two characterising peaks, effectively claims other polymorphs not necessarily yet discovered and so the claims 'greedily' encompass more than the specification teaches.
The justification for the patent is related to enhanced flow properties of the polymorph. However since the claims cover traces of the polymorph, the claimed material as a whole does not show enhanced flow properties.
Based on the introduction to the specification, the Opposer believes that the scope of the patent should be limited to at least 90% of the specific polymorph as characterized by all its peaks. In response to the Applicants claim that the introductory paragraph was included by mistake, the Opposer notes that such a 'mistake' is a factual error and to substantiate that it occurred requires factual support, not expert opinion, and so this claim of mistaken inclusion should be struck from the record or given negligible evidentiary weight. To support this argument, Teva notes that Dr Voleman was not the representative of Novartis during the patent prosecution when the paragraph was allegedly mistakenly included.
Furthermore, Teva posits that the average person of the art reading the application would conclude that the invention is for formulations including at least 90% by weight of the (beta) salt of Imatinib Methanesulfonate rendering Dr Voleman's opinion irrelevant.
Finally, the Opposer claims that there is overlap between the claims of this divisional and of the parent application, and thus the Applicant is trying to obtain two patents for the same invention. However, this line of reasoning was not related to in the summary and seems to have been abandoned.
The Applicant's Position
The Applicant considers that the specific Example of 90% beta polymorph given in the specification is simply that. It is a non-limiting specific formulation that is provided by way of example.
The Applicant accuses the Opposer of cherry-picking statements from the specification to provide interpretation to the claims, rather than to interpret the claims in light of the specification taken as a complete document. The introductory paragraph was provided for administrative purposes and is not to be used to interpret the patent. Indeed, this paragraph was never intended to be part of the disclosure and was included in the specification by mistake. The parent application claimed the beta polymorph in concentrations exceeding 90% and at the time of filing, the Applicant considered that the practice was to conform the background to the claims, and then to file a divisional with the same specification as the parent, but with different claims. Consequently, the limitations of the introductory paragraph referred to the parent and not the divisional, were inherited from the parent, and are not to be considered as limiting the scope of the claims. Thus according to the Applicant, persons of the art would appreciate that the application in question is a divisional application and the paragraph in question related to the parent patent.
The Applicant claims that the present application claims a new polymorph and is a product claim that is per se patentable. To argue the point they referred to TEVA applications for polymorphs that claim the desired properties of the polymorph, such as flow properties, compaction properties, and the like. These are characteristic of the polymorph but it is the polymorphs itself that is being protected as a new composition of matter.
The properties of the beta polymorph are inherent to the crystalline structure and not to the concentration of the polymorph in the formulation. Since the beta polymorph has inherent advantages, its discovery and manufacture has utility and is thus a patentable invention.
The guidelines for patentable subject matter are given in the Supreme Court rule 345/87 Hughes Aircraft vs. State of Israel p.d. 44(4) 45, 65:
"true the interpretation of patents is not substantially different from the interpretation of any other document, and the standard laws of interpreting papers apply to it. However, due to the special nature and power of patents, additional care must be taken in interpreting since they effectively provide a monopoly in the marketplace. The basic principle is that the patent should be read as a document in its entirety to understand the inventor's intention as it is expressed in the document…since the patent is primarily directed to professionals in the technological field that the patent considers to be the field of relevance, it should be interpreted using professional knowledge (state of the art) at the time of filing. However, since the patent is supposed to indicate the inventor's intention, there is some flexibility in giving interpretation to phrases and terms that appear in the claims and the rest of the specification, such as the description, may be used as a dictionary for these phrases and terms. In other words, as a lexicography of the invention."
Section 13a of the Law states that:
The specification will conclude with one or more claims that define the invention, however these claims must be fairly based on the specification.
Regulation (20)a(3) of the patent regulations 1968 expounds section 13 and requires that the claims are 'succinct and clear'.
It will be appreciated that the claims define the scope of protection claimed. The claim interpretation should be based on the specification in its entirety – including the description and the figures (Hughes, page 65). However, one cannot import limitations from the specification into the claims:
"The starting point for the appropriate approach is that patent documentation is a one-sided document that the inventor himself writes and he has freedom to write it as he likes. (Catnic Components Ltd. [22] at 242). A lack of clarity regarding the explanation of a phrase or term in the claims can be made by reference to the specification so long as this is done with reference to the specification as a whole and not selectively in a way to favour the applicant whilst disregarding other phrases in the specification that lead to a different interpretation (Electric & Musical Industries Ld. And Boonton Research Co. Ld. [21], at 41)."
Section 13(a) deals with the question of whether the claims of the application are fairly based on the specification and whether or not they are sufficiently enabled for persons of the art to practice. The Court of Appeals of the EPO has nicely summed this up as follows:
"Undue breadth is not a reason for refusing a claim under the EPC as long as its subject-matter is novel and inventive, and sufficiently disclosed in and supported by the description." T 0593/96 INDIGO N.V. (18.11.1996).
See also T 0456/91 Syntex (USA) Inc. v. Debiopharm S.A., (3.11.1993).
In this instance, the Opposer alleges that the claims are not supported by the specification to the extent required by Section 13(a) of the Law since the claims are wider than that supported. The Opposer calls the claims 'Greedy'. The extent that this term can be used with reference to the requirements of Section 13(a) is given in Appeal 1008/58 Alerican Cyanamid vs. Lepitit et al. page 261 from 4 April 1960. See also Opposition by Teva to IL 142809 to Pharmacia AB from 26 February 2015.
In his Opinion from 1 December 2013, Dr. Mark Zakrzewski (Teva's expert witness) notes that the invention clearly specifies a 90% concentration of the beta phase.
"34. The alleged invention is explicitly described in the Patent Application as a methansulfonate salt of Imatinib Mesylate comprising "at least 90% by weight of crystals of the β-modification…" or "in essentially pure form".
Based on this, the Opposer considers that claim 1 which lacks this limitation is wider than that supportable under Section 13(a).
Consideration of the Application itself shows that there is no certain preference to limit the concentration of the beta phase. For example, page 3 states:
"The invention relates to an acid addition salt of a compound of formula I comprising non-needle-shaped crystals, especially the β-crystal form of the methanesulfonic acid addition salt of the compound of formula I.
The invention relates especially to a particular, form of the monomethanesulfonic acid addition salt of a compound of formula I,
comprising at least 90% by weight of crystals of the β-modification, said crystals of the β-modification showing on X-ray diffraction a peak at an angle of refraction 2theta of 20°, said peak having a relative line intensity of 65 as compared to the most intense line in the diagram".
Further on, on page 4 of the specification, the following is stated:
"The term "essentially pure" is understood in the context of the present invention to mean especially that at least 90, preferably at least 95, and most preferably at least 99 per cent by weight of the crystals of an acid addition salt of formula I are present in the crystal form according to the invention, especially the β-crystal form.
The invention expressly relates also to those forms of the methanesulfonic acid addition salt of a compound of formula I in which crystals of the crystal form according to the invention, especially the β-crystal form, are present in essentially pure form…".
From the above it is clear that the specification does relate to the beta phase in a manner that does not necessitate limiting it to a preferred concentration. Apart from the opening paragraph which will be discussed separately, the specification uses terms such as 'particularly' and 'especially' with regards to concentrations and does not limit to these desirada.
The reader will appreciate that the patent relates to the non-needle-like beta phase but not to specific concentration ranges. See Section 22 of Dr Bates' opinion on behalf of the Applicant:
"22. Contrary to Dr. Zakrzewski's assertions, the specification teaches and enables form β per se, without any purity limitations. An "essentially pure" form β is one of the preferred embodiments of the invention, but by no means reflects the entire scope of the invention. Dr. Zakrzewski apparently selects a couple of paragraphs which highlight a preferred embodiment, disregards the teaching of the specification as a whole will readily understand that the invention is the discovery and development of the novel form β and that the invention is not limited to form β only when it is "essentially pure"."
As to the practice of claiming new polymorphs, Dr Bates opines:
"Indeed, just like new chemical entities, novel polymorphs are claimed per se without quantitative purity limitations. At the most, quantitative limitations are a preferred embodiment, as in the instant case. For the sake of demonstration, I instructed applicant's counsel to search polymorph patents issued to Teva by the USPTO. Overall, 78 patents claiming polymorph forms were found. 77 patents out of 78 patents claim the polymorph forms per se, without "quantitative" or "purity" limitations…"
The Applicant explained that the introductory paragraph was the result of the Examiner requiring the specification of the parent to be conformed to the claimed invention, and then was inherited in the divisional application. This claim, related to in Dr Voleman's opinion, relates to factual matters. Commissioner Kling concurs with the Opposer that Dr Voleman is not the 'correct' witness to testify that this was a mistake and does not have first-hand knowledge regarding that which she is about. Such a claim requires support by an affidavit and is a matter for first-hand testimony and not for an expert witness to hypothesize about.
That said, the state of affairs is not sufficient to warrant deviating from the general principle stated in the Hughes Aircraft Decision, that the specification should be considered ain its entirety. From this perspective, the Commissioner is willing to accept the Applicant's claim that the introduction is not indicative of the scope of the invention and cannot be relied upon to the exclusion of the rest of the specification to explain that scope of the application. A person of the art who reads the document as a whole would not rely on the introductory paragraph alone, but would read the patent application in its entirety.
The Opposer alleges that the claimed invention does not have utility since it does not demonstrate the advantages of the beta polymorph when present in minor proportions.
It is true that amongst other requirements, in accordance with Section 3 of the Law, a patentable invention has to have utility. The utility is a requirement that the patent application as a whole must satisfy as stated by Judge Hendel in Appeal 5041/13 Anat Gabai et al vs. Aminach Mattresses, 21 January 2014:
Reading the main paragraph that gives the requirements for patentability teaches that "utility" is the second criterion of the four criteria for patentability. This is not by chance. All patent applications are expected to have utility.
The nature of the utility requirement is discussed by Judge Netanyahu in Appeal 665/84 Sanofi vs. Unipharm p.d. 41(4) 729:
At the time of filing the Application, it has to include a promise of utility. If this is the case, generally the requirements of Section 3 are met. Proof of this promise will be required at the Opposition stage, if this is submitted as grounds for Opposition, or in a cancellation proceedings or infringement action. In Oppositions, the burden of proof is on the Applicant since the patent has not yet issued; in cancellation or infringement proceedings the burden is on the challenger / infringer.
See also the Opposition to 179840 Aminach Furniture Industries Ltd vs. Anat and Moshe Gabai, 20 November 2012.
In this instance, it appears that the promise that is the basis of the Application is the advantage of the Beta phase regardless of concentration. (There is no dispute that the beta phase is novel and inventive). The advantages that Novartis' witness Dr Bates has alleged are the improved flowability and compactability of the beta phase when compared with the alpha phase, and the parties concur that these properties are desirable in pharmaceutical formulations.
To the extent that the claimed properties are substantiated, they are substantiated for formulations with a greater than 90% concentration of the beta phase. The Applicant did not demonstrate or provide evidence of these properties in lower concentrations.
As stressed above, in the Sanofi ruling, the court emphasized that the claimed advantages have to be proven at the opposition stage if the utility is challenged. Some evidence is required to show that the promise is attained, although not necessarily the quantity of experimental evidence that would be required were the opposers to actively provide counter-evidence.
In this instance, the Applicant continues to allege that they deserve a patent for formulations with even minimal beta content. The Opposers have noted that there is no evidence that such low concentration formulations have advantages over the alpha phase and the Applicant has not provided evidence to support their claims or a reasonably convincing counter-argument in response to the Opposer's reasoning. This is not to say that had the Applicant's expert witness related to this, his arguments would have been found convincing – See Opposition ruling concerning IL 143977 Unipharm vs. AstraZenica AB paragraph 44.
In this instance, at the joint request of the parties, no witness is being cross-examined. From this it is clear that the Applicant has not substantiated their claim that formulations with low concentrations of the beta phase have sufficient utility to be patentable.
The overlap between the claims of the Divisional Application and those of the Parent
In addition to the above, the present application is not patentable due to the significant overlap between the claims and those of the parent patent.
Whilst it is true that in their summation, the Opposer abandoned this line of reasoning, the Commissioner does not consider that this fact alone is sufficient for the matter to be dropped since oppositions are a continuation of the examination process and the patentability question is once again opened. The purpose of oppositions is to ensure the purity of the register and is a continuation of the administrative process (See Opposition to 136482 Bromium Compositions vs. Albermarle Corporation USA, 7 November 2010.
Section 2 prohibits granting a patent for an already patented invention. See also the IL 203972 Novartis decision. To address the issue of double patenting it is necessary to consider the scope of the invention. The scope of the invention may be learned from the total breadth of protection that the patentee receives (see 2626/11 Hassin Fire Industries vs. Koniel Antonio (Israel) Ltd. 14 November 2013 paragraphs 35-38.)
Independent Claim 1 of the parent application claims the beta phase of the Imatinib Methanesulfonate salt at concentrations of at least 90% with a strong 2theta XRay defraction peak at 20° as follows:
Thus the parent claims the same beta Imatinib Methanesulfonate salt concentrations of at least 90% whereas claim 1 of child patent does not include a minimum concentration. The specifications are the same apart from minor differences that are insignificant, and so the claim construction considerations used to define the terms are the same in both the parent patent and in the divisional application. Despite different phraseology the scope of the claims overlap.
The differences are in the non-needle like form of the crystal, the characteristic XRay diffraction peaks and the concentration limitation of the parent. Careful examination indicates that the same polymorph is covered by both cases, although defined differently, with the sole difference being the concentration limitation in the parent is not in the divisional application and this removal of the concentration limitation is the feature that the Applicant points to as being the patentable feature. However no advantage is given for the low concentrations covered by the divisional application. The Applicant claims that the parent patent and divisional application cover different aspects of the invention. However, the concentration is not an aspect warranting separate registration.
The IL 174082 Application is refused. Costs are applicable as per Commissioner Circular M.N. 80.
It seems to me that the person of the art considering a patent publication to understand the scope of the claims is a patent attorney with pharmacological background, or a team including technical people and patent counsel. I don't believe that any industrialist (except possibly Dr Zebulun Tomer of Unipharm who has been challenging blockbuster patents for years and has been known to file oppositions by himself) would construe the claims of a pharmaceutical patent without seeking legal advice so Dr Volman can be considered as an expert.
The Commissioner is correct that there is no obvious or demonstrated utility for the lower concentrations.
Requesting a patent allowance to be cancelledJanuary 8, 2017
Israel Patent Number 219586 to Fritz Collischan & Co. KG was allowed. The patent is titled "DEVICE FOR COUNTING OBJECTS FED AS BULK MATERIAL"and is the national phase entry into Israel of PCT/EP2010/067146 which published as WO2011/054974.
In a rather surprising move, Data Detection Technologies Inc, represented by Pearl Cohen Tzedek Latzer Brats requested that the allowance of the patent be cancelled. Actually this is not the first request of this type, for the present patent. Back on 9 March 2015, following a request to have the allowance withdrawn on grounds that the applicant did not provide a list of prior art as required to under Section 18 of the Law, the same third party requested that the patent be disallowed, and on that occasion, the Applicant agreed for it to be returned to a state of pending allowance. Following that episode, the now pending patent application was returned to the Examiner and eventually was allowed on 29 September 2016 and published for Opposition purposes under Section 26 of the Law. Data Detection Technologies Inc have again requested that the case be returned to the Examiner as they have found additional citations and video clips that they claim reveal the invention and which were sent by themselves to the Applicant some month before allowance.
Despite bringing the additional material to the Applicant's attention, the Applicants did not make this art of record and the patent was eventually allowed under Section 17c, on the basis of a corresponding issued patent (which presumably itself issued without the Examiner thereof considering the video clips and publications submitted by Data Detection Technologies Inc. Data Detection Technologies Inc argued that this failure is sufficient to prevent the patent issuing under Section 18c of the Law. Alternatively, since the citations are central to the patentability of the invention, Data Detection Technologies Inc considers that minimally the patent be returned to the Examiner for further Examination.
Data Detection Technologies Inc considers it inappropriate for them to have to fight an expensive opposition proceedings which was caused by the applicant failing in their duty of disclosure.
The Applicant claims that the appropriate way to raise issues relating to the duty of disclosure is via an opposition proceedings, and the arguments submitted by Data Detection Technologies relate to grounds for Opposition under Section 31 of the Law. The Applicant posits that withdrawal of allowance is an appropriate measure only in those rare cases where the decision to allow was flawed, or where a letter of allowance was issued by mistake. The Applicant does not consider this to be such a case.
The Applicant notes that the additional material was collected in an opposition proceeding that Fritz Collischan is fighting against an allowed patent of Data Detection Technologies. In that proceeding, Data Detection Technologies Inc requested an extension to respond to the Opposition and to amend the specification. The Applicant submits that the extension was applied for in bad faith and with factual inaccuracies in the justifications given. The Applicant further submits that the Affidavit includes hearsay that is not acceptable as evidence.
The parties concur that the Commissioner may cancel a notice of allowance and return an application to the Examiner if there is a major flaw in the decision to allow the patent. This authority is derived from Section 15 of the Law of Interpretation 1981 and was adopted by the patent office in the previous ruling concerning Data Detection vs. Collischan from 9 March 2015 and also in the Cellular Dynamics vs. Christopher Reed ruling from 29 April 2014.
The argument is whether the current situation is one where it is appropriate for the Commissioner to exercise their authority and to withdraw the notice of allowance, or whether the appropriate action is for Data Detection Technologies Inc to file an Opposition under Section 31 of the Patent Law 1967?
The Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha considers that the choice of appropriate course of action is to be found in the purposes of the two courses, which are also derived from their different ways of being initiated. The authority under Section 15 of the Law of Interpretation is something initiated by the administrative body to correct a mistake that they made in an earlier decision or t as a result of a change of circumstances, as an exceptional course of action where there is no other appropriate recourse authorized by the law (See Y. Zamir, Government Authority (1996) pages 1003-1006. In contradistinction, the purpose of the Opposition proceeding is to critique the Examination and to continue the Examination of a patent application in an inter-partes procedure initiated by the third party (see the Israel Patent Office Ruling re IL 136482 Bromium Compounds Ltd vs Albermarle Corporation of 7 November 2010.
With all due respect, I consider that the courts approach has changed since then, and nowadays the Supreme Court considers the Opposition procedure as being complimentary to and a completion of the Examination since it is intended to serve the public interest and the accuracy of the register.
In the framework of cancellation of an allowance the amount that the public would have relied on the notice of allowance and the type of mistake that resulted in the allowance are to be considered. However, it should be appreciated that not ALL mistakes justify the cancellation of an administrative decision. A mistaken decision based on consideration of the facts and simply reaching the wrong conclusion, will not, in general, justify changing an administrative decision (see Zamir on page 1006). The Authority will generally reach this result in cases where there is a suspicion that someone has been awarded more than he deserves. Such a suspicion is not sufficient to justify cancelling the benefit by the government body (see Zamir on Page 1007).
In contradistinction to the civil proceeding to cancel an administrative decision, the Opposition is an adversarial judicial proceeding or sub-judicial proceeding that allows the parties to bring evidence in accordance with the law of evidence, allows opposing counsel to cross-examine witnesses and enables the patent office to come to a reasoned decision. In such a proceeding, the Patent Authority is not limited by the administrative decision and he can reexamine the patentability of the invention in light of the evidence and claims before it, even apart from the considerations that the Examiner used in reaching the decision of allowance.
From the above it is clear that where a mistake in a decision is not self-evident and requires substantive clarification, the administrative decision to cancel the allowance is inappropriate.
In this instance, to determine whether the applicant is required to alert the Examiner about the publications that Data Detection mention, one has to see whether the publications "relate directly to the invention" as required by Section 19(a)2 of the Patent Law. To do this, it is necessary to listen to the claims and evidence of the parties regarding the nature of the invention.
Even if a decision is reached that the Applicant should indeed have made these publications of record under the duty of disclosure, it is necessary to consider if a failure to have done so can be dealt with by the alternatives in Section 18 or if the decision to allow the patent [to proceed for opposition purposes] should be cancelled. In this regard, to the extent that a publication allegedly shows the patent being demonstrated or implemented, the Examiner is not duty bound to consider it. Section 17b of the Law states that:
(a) an Examiner will consider if the Examination answers all the following:
(1) is for an invention considered patentable under Chapter 2;
(b) despite section (a)(1), there is no obligation to examine patentability in accordance with Section 4(2).
In summary, the Deputy Commissioner Ms Bracha does not consider that the present case is a mistake that warrants cancellation of the Notice of Allowance and does not see how the legal and factual issues can be considered in a decision to cancel the allowance and how this advances the case to a final decision on patentability.
The final claim of Data Detection Technologies Inc, that Applicant's failure to make art of record should not oblige them to enter a lengthy and costly opposition proceeding. It is true that oppositions are lengthy and the regulations provide at least 16 months from initiation of an opposition until a hearing is scheduled. The parties may request extensions and interim decisions, to correct the specification and more. Nevertheless, the Opposer can submit their evidence on filing their statement of case, thereby significantly shortening the procedure. Furthermore, on conclusion of the opposition, the prevailing party is awarded actual costs, if they are essential, reasonable and proportional See Bagatz 891/05 Tnuva Agricultural Cooperative vs. the Authority for Granting Import licenses, p/d/ 60(a) 600. From here it is clear that if Data Detection Technologies Inc are right, they can expense appropriate compensation.
Therefore it is not considered that the decision to allow the patent was clearly erroneous, justifying its cancellation without a factual inquiry, and it is precisely the anticipated costs that are incurred by an opposer for conducting an opposition that tilts the balance towards holding an opposition proceeding.
As an afterword, it is noted that this is not the place to consider the behavior of Data Detection Technologies in a separate opposition before the Patent Office.
Data Detection Technologies are ordered to pay 4000 Shekels + VAT in legal fees to Fritz Collischan.
This decision is a correct one. Since, nowadays pending applications publish 18 months from priority and the whole file wrapper is available for examination prior to allowance, maybe Israel should formally allow third party prior art submissions.
It seems that Data Detection Technologies Inc is trying to delay issuance without formally filing an opposition. I think that this decision, not allowing this is correct.
Previous opposition rulings that relate to failure to submit art generally did not invalidate the patent on this ground alone, but it is within the authority of the patent office to do so.
Exforge Patent Successfully Opposed in Israel, despite surviving an Opposition based on similar citations in EuropeNovember 7, 2016
Exforge is a blockbuster drug sold by Novartis for lowering blood pressure that combines two medications in a film-coated tablet It contains amlodipine, a dihydropyridine-type calcium channel blocker, and valsartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist (ARB or A2RA); typically formulated as the benzenesulfonate salt.
Israel Patent Application No. IL 140665 titled "USE OF COMBINATION COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING VALSARTAN AND AMLODIPINE IN THE PREPARATION OF MEDICAMENTS FOR THE TREATMENT AND PREVENTION OF DIABETES ASSOCIATED WITH HYPERTENSION" relates to the drug.
In an Opposition to the Patent Application issuing, the Deputy Commissioner, Ms Jacqueline Bracha, has ruled that the combination of two active ingredients, each individually known for treating high blood pressure, into one pill for ease of dosage is not inherently inventive where the separate efficacy of the active ingredients is known, as are other two component pills for treating hypertension. Though claimed by applicants, there is no evidence of a synergy between the active ingredients. The Patent Application is therefore ruled not patentable in Israel and significant costs were awarded to Teva and Unipharm. We expect that the decision will be appealed. This decision may have a knock on effect regarding patents for the same drug abroad and may encourage Teva to proceed with at-risk launches of generic competitors in other jurisdictions.
A translation of the ruling follows:
IL 221116 – Extending the Period for Reconsideration of a Refused PatentNovember 2, 2016
Israel Patent Application No. IL 22116 titled "Mouth Cleaner" was applied for by Yaakov Dichtenberg and Danny Unger who is also a patent attorney.
The Application was rejected. Under Section 21a and 164a of the Israel Patent Law 1967, within 12 months of a final rejection, the Applicant may request reconsideration by the Commissioner. After that time it is possible to have a closed application reopened, but it is difficult and it is generally necessary to show extreme circumstances resulted in the application becoming abandoned.
This Application was filed on 25 July 2012 and, in accordance with Section 16a of the Law, a Notice of Imminent Publication was sent to the Applicants on 5 January 2014. This notice was sent to the address given on the application form which was the address of the first Applicant, Mr Danny Unger, a patent attorney who represented himself and the his c0-applicant. The Application published on 30 January 2014.
On 2 February 2014 the Applicants received a Notice of Imminent Examination in accordance with Section 18 of the Law and regulation 36 of the patent regulations 1968. Since the Applicants did not respond to this Notice within the period ordained in regulation 36, a reminder was sent on 5 November 2014 to the effect that in absence of a response within 30 days, the Application would be deemed abandoned. Subsequently, on 21 December 2014 a Notice of Rejection issued that also informed the Applicants that they could request reinstatement within 12 months.
On 21 December 2015 a request for reinstatement was received together with a response to the Notice Prior to Examination. The Notice of Reinstatement did not include a signed affidavit as required by Commissioner Circular 026/2014, however the Applicants alleged that they never received the correspondence due to a change of address.
On 15 March 2016 the Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha requested that the Applicants provide a detailed signed statement of the events leading to the Application becoming abandoned and set a date of 20 April 2016 for a hearing.
On 19 April 2016, one day before the hearing, the Applicants requested a postponement for personal reasons. Despite the lateness of the request and the lack of a doctor's letter, Ms Bracha agreed to the postponement. Nevertheless, the detailed statement was not submitted.
Applicant and Patent Attorney Unger arrived very late to the rescheduled hearing and claimed that he thought that updating the Ministry of the Interior regarding his change of address was sufficient to automatically update the patent office records. The Applicant was informed that Regulation 16a makes it clear that he should have proactively informed the Israel Patent Office of his change of address and that he still needed to provide an affidavit.
On 25 May 2016 an Affidavit was received in which the Applicant informed the Israel Patent Office that he neglected to inform them of his change of address and consequently never received the correspondence from 2014 to 2016 which was sent to his previous address. He went on to affirm that he never intended to abandon the Application and wanted to continue prosecuting the Application in parallel with the US application.
Section 21a sets the timetable for requesting reconsideration of a rejected Application as follows:
21A. If the Registrar refused to accept an application under section 21, then he may— on the applicant's application—reconsider the refusal, on condition that the application be submitted within 12 months after the day on which the Registrar refused to accept it as aforesaid.
Section 164a of the Law enables the Commissioner to extend Section 21a due to reasonable causes:
Where the 12 month period stated in Section 21 has passed, the Commissioner may, nevertheless, reinstate a patent application in exceptional circumstances under Section 164a which states:
164.—(a) The Registrar may, if he sees reasonable cause for doing so, extend any time prescribed by this Law or by regulations under it for the performance of anything at the Office or before the Registrar, except for the times prescribed in sections 30, 56, 57, 61, 64F, 64M…
As the Deputy Commissioner, Ms Bracha sees it, Section 21a gives the timeline for an Applicant to restore an Application. Section 164a gives the Commissioner sweeping powers to reinstate but has to be applied with consideration of the fine balance between the Applicant's interest and that of the public; see 2806/04 Commissioner of Patents vs. Recodati Ireland LTD:
The policy regarding different requests to extend deadlines will vary depending on context and the type of proceeding that the extension is requested for.
If the Commissioner agrees to an extension, he is entitled to make the decision dependent on appropriate conditions in the circumstances as detailed in Section 164b:
The Commissioner may make the extension dependent on any conditions as seen fit.
As ruled in the decision concerning IL 157563 ICOS Corporation from 21 October 2013:
Citing Opposition IL 110548 Shmuel Sadovski vs. Hogla Kimberly Marketing LTD. regarding Revivals, the relevant considerations are the time passed and the underlying reasons for the delay. In this regard, the time passed not only provides an indication of the reasonableness of the Applicant's behaviour, but also affects the likelihood of third parties relying on the case being abandoned, since it is evident that the longer an application remains abandoned, the greater the likelihood that third-parties will have relied upon the invention not having been patented.
In this instance, the period beyond the 12 months automatically granted by Section 21a of the Law is minimal. The Applicant filed a request on the last day but did not file it properly since no Affidavit was included. The Affidavit was only submitted after the hearing.
However, the behaviour of the Applicant does not conform to that expected of a Patent Attorney, who, in this case, represents not just himself, but also a second Applicant. A Patent Attorney is expected to know that he should provide an address to the Israel Patent Office and that this address will be the one that post is sent to. The Patent Office cannot change the address of record without instruction to do so in a formal request to change the address of record. No such request was submitted. Furthermore, the Applicant found it difficult to conform with the revival instructions after being instructed to provide an affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the application going abandoned. Nevertheless, it does seem that the Applicant followed the case or he would not have known that he should request revival of the Application.
In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner ruled that the case should be returned to the Examiner as per Section 21a. However, because of the public interest, the Deputy Commissioner makes revival conditional on anyone relying on the patent lapsing from when it lapsed until when it was reinstated being allowed to continue using the invention, even if a patent should eventually issue.
Notice is given to the Applicant that his address has still not been updated.
Decision by Ms Jacqueline Bracha regarding reinstatement of IL 221116 ""Mouth Cleaner" to Yaakov Dichtenberg and Danny Unger", 7 September 2016
Apart from being rather surprised that a registered Patent Attorney could forget to update the patent office about his change of address and assume that the Ministry of the Interior would do it automatically, I am at a loss as to why he didn't bother checking up the progress of the application for his own invention on-line.
Since the request for revival was filed within the 12 month time period, at least, since all yearly and monthly deadlines are to the same calendar day, I think the decision is correct.
I couldn't resist reviewing the Application as claimed, and note that the first few claims attempt to monopolize apples and chewing gum. Go figure.
Are methods of calculating rediculous alleged legal costs trade-secrets?November 1, 2016
Teva successfully opposed IL 184027 to Novartis titled "COMPOUND TRISODIUM [3-((1S,3R)-1- BIPHENYL-4-YLMETHYL-3- ETHOXYCARBONYL-1- BUTYLCARBAMOYL)PROPIONATE-(S)- 3¶METHYL-2¶PENTANOYL{2¶¶ TETRAZOL-5-YLATE)BIPHENYL- 4¶YLMETHYL}AMINO)BUTYRATE] HEMIPENTAHYDRATE, ITS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS, METHOD FOR ITS PREPARATION AND USE THEREOF IN THE PREPARATION OF MEDICAMENTS."
The application was filed on 18 June 2007 as the national phase entry of PCT/US2006/043710. A divisional application was filed as IL 219782. The application published for opposition purposes on 30 November 2014, and on 25 February 2015 Teva Pharmaceuticals LTD filed an opposition. One day later Unipharm also filed an Opposition. Subsequently, since there was a pending divisional application and because the opposer had not filed their statement of case, the Opposers filed for suspension of the Opposition proceeding for 18 months as per Commissioner Circular 020/2012 "Opposition to a divisional patent or to a patent that is divided" from 18 November 2012. The Applicant opposed the request to stay the opposition. However, on 9 August 2014, the Commissioner agreed to stay the opposition proceeding.
On 7 September 2015, the applicant abandoned the divisional application and requested that the Opposition against the parent application be renewed and that the Opposer file their statement of case. The commissioner accepted this, and on 9 September 2015 gave the Opposers 60 days to file their statement of cases.
On 8 November 2015 Teva announced that they were withdrawing their opposition for "pure business reasons". On 30 November 2016, the Commissioner ruled that the Teva opposition be closed and that the Unipharm opposition continue.
On 11 January 2016, Novartis requested costs from TEVA. The costs request was supported by a statement from Liad Whatstein, Novartis' counsel, but with many details thereof blacked out as they are allegedly business secrets and some are pertinent to the ongoing Opposition by Unipharm. They also requested a confidentiality order with respect to the blacked out data.
The Commissioner decided that Novartis had failed to make a case that the data should remain confidential, and issued a ruling on 4 February 2016 rejecting the confidentiality clause. Novartis' counsel chose not to provide a time-sheet detailing the work done, considering this also as being a trade-secret.
Novartis' Claims
The Applicant considers that TEVA's withdrawing from their opposition puts them into the category of a party that loses their case. They do not think that the ongoing opposition by Unipharm should release TEVA from having to bear costs in a proceeding that they initiated. Thus Novartis alleges that TEVA should have to pay half the actual costs incurred by Novartis from when the opposition was filed until when it was abandoned, which comes to $17,136.72.
The Applicant claimed that due to the tight deadlines and the complicated scientific data they had to prepare for the opposition prior to the statement of case being filed. The complications are evidenced by Unipharm's opposition and by the corresponding opposition filed in Europe. Furthermore, the Applicant claims that TEVA's behavior and the time passed from when the opposition was filed until when it was withdrawn after the continuation was abandoned, created a state of affairs wherein TEVA could reasonably expect that Novartis would work on the opposition and incur costs thereby.
Novartis also claimed that TEVA had abused the opposition process by filing a baseless opposition simply to delay the patent issuing and to cause the divisional application to he withdrawn. Consequently Novartis considered that TEVA should pay costs.
TEVA's Claims
TEVA considers that Novartis is NOT entitled to costs at all and the cost request should be denied and Novartis should be charged for Teva having to respond to their costs claim. Alternatively, each side should bear their own costs. Since the Opposition was terminated early it is by no means clear that were it to have continued, Novartis would have prevailed and would be entitled to costs for the preliminary part where Teva was involved. Teva alleges that if the Novartis application is refused, not only would Teva not have to compensate them, but conceivably Novartis would have to pay the costs that Teva incurred in filing the statement of case.
Additionally, Teva considers that the Applicants actions and the costs incurred thereby in preparation of an anticipated opposition were needlessly incurred. Teva considers that from studying other statements of opposition, there is nothing to justify the preliminary and anticipatory actions that Novartis took, and certainly one cannot hold Teva responsible for such actions. Furthermore, the actions taken by the Applicant preceded the time when Teva had to submit their statement of case – which, in the event, were never submitted.
Teva went on to allege that the claimed expenses were unreasonable when considering the stage that the opposition procedure had reached. Furthermore, these so-called expenses were, in the main, not supported by an affidavit.
The Ruling
True, Teva filed an Opposition which was then abandoned early on. The Application is, however, still being opposed by Unipharm and has not issued as a patent. In this specific case, following review of the claims and counter-claims of the parties, Commissioner Kling concluded that the request for costs to be awarded to Teva should be deferred until the Unipharm opposition runs its course, depending on the outcome thereof.
The Commissioner has the authority to delay cost ruling under section 162b of the Law:
162b The commissioner is authorized to rule reasonable costs, to determine which partner should pay costs and how they should be paid.
Generally, the Commissioner rules costs in favour of the winning party. As a general rule, the side that abandons their case for whatever reason, and consequently a patent issues, is considered as having lost the proceeding and is to bear costs of the opposing party. (See 133957 cost ruling Pfizer Products Ltd vs. Teva Pharamaceuticals 14 February 2008). Nevertheless, the awarding of costs is left to the commissioner's discretion and this is certainly the case where the abandoning of an Opposition does not necessarily lead to a patent issuing.
In this instance, despite Teva abandoning the Opposition the proceedings are ongoing. Unipharm's opposition is still being fought and one cannot consider Novartis as being one who has won their battle. It is thus not the time for Novartis to claim costs. Consequently, at this stage the Commissioner is refraining from determining what costs the Applicant is entitled to, and what costs the Opposer is or may be entitled to. These will be determined once the fate of IL 184027 us known.
As an afterward and without final determination of the costs themselves, the Commissioner noted that it is rather difficult to rule on costs in the manner that they were submitted, with certain facts blacked out and no support for other contentions. This makes the reasonableness, necessity of and proportionality of the alleged expenses difficult to substantiate and makes it difficult to award real costs (see Supreme Court Ruling 891/05 Tnuva Cooperative for Marketing Israeli Produce vs. The Authority for Granting export Licences of the Department of Trade and Industry p.d 60(1) 600 (30 June 2005). This is particularly the case when considering the enormous costs claimed and the early stage at which the Opposition was abandoned by Teva, prior to submission of any substantive arguments. See the ruling of the Then Deputy. Commissioner re IL 113433 Smithkline Beecham Corporation (SKB) vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals (30 May 2005).
Interim Ruling re Costs in Il 184027 Teva vs. Novartis Oppostion Asa Kling 19 September 2016.
Whilst filing an opposition and then suspending until a divisional application issues or is abandoned could be considered as a delaying tactic, often filing such divisional applications is simply a means to keep an applications pending through parallel opposition proceedings, enabling a new claim approach not conceived at the time of filing to be considered. Since Unipharm is rather good at successfully opposing patents, it is a reasonable tactic for Teva to leave it to them to challenge the validity of the allowed claims. One suspects that Teva will have made relevant prior art and arguments available to Unipharm.
The successful opposer is entitled to claim costs from the applicant. Nevertheless, I am flabbergasted that Whatstein could make a claim for over $17,000 for costs incurred by having an opposition filed against his client prior to even having a statement of case requiring analysis being submitted. There were no patents or other prior art or other evidence that needed to be analyzed and no claims that needed consideration. Apart from informing Novartis that an Opposition had been filed, it is difficult to see what work was necessarily incurred. Submitting a blacked out statement simply flags the fact that this is unreasonable. In desperation, I went to his website and discovered that as part of patent litigation "The firm orchestrated and designed complex experiments in patent infringement and opposition proceedings and uses a network of internationally acclaimed experts and external laboratories. In addition, the firm is involved in a large number of multi-jurisdictional patent proceedings." This certainly goes some way to explain how $17,000 worth of costs could be accumulated, but one wonders if it was proportionate, reasonable and neccessary in response to an opposition being filed prior to relevant prior art and arguments being made of record.
Wet-wipes, The Issue of Inventorship and the Responsibilities of the Patent AttorneySeptember 22, 2016
This ruling concerns a product that resulting from the contributions of two people who were formerly friends. A patent application was filed that named both people as both inventors and applicants. Later, after powers-of-attorney signed by each of the named inventor – applicants had been filed, there was an attempt to 'correct an office error', to list one of them as an inventor only. The corresponding PCT application and the national phase entry applications, including two issued patents in the United States only bore the name of one inventor and applicant. In an Opposition ruling the Israel Patent Office has now accepted that the second named inventor is indeed an inventor and also an owner.
Apart from emphasizing the need to determine who is the inventor and who is the owner of an invention when the patent is filed, the need to put everything into writing, and the dangers of working with friends, the case raises interesting questions regarding what contribution to reducing a patent to practice entitles someone to recognition as an inventor and whether this standard is the same in all jurisdictions. It also raises interesting questions regarding the duties and responsibilities of the patent attorney to ascertain the facts, or at least to avoid signing on contradictory statements regarding ownership and invention in different jurisdictions.
IL 152867 titled "Tissue Container With Auxiliary Compartment"is a patent application for a package of wet-wipes
with an adjacent container for nappy cream. The Application was filed back in November 2002 and listed Boaz Krystal and Liat De-Vries as inventors and owners. The patent application was allowed at the end of June 2010.
Subsequently, an Opposition was filed by WET-NAPS LTD and Liat De-Vries on 4 October 2010 under Section 31(3) of the Israel Patent Law 1967 on the grounds that Boaz Krystal was not in fact an owner, and that the patent was exclusively owned by Ms Liat De-Vries.
Mr Boaz Krystal and his wife Mrs Dorit Krystal each submitted affidavits. Mrs Liat De-Vries submitted a primary affidavit and a supplementary one in response to Mr Boaz Krystal's affidavit. Wet-Naps Ltd. is owned by Mr Ilan De-Vries, who is Mrs Liat De-Vries' husband. He also submitted an affidavit on behalf of the company. Mr David De-Vries, a patent attorney at Reinhold Cohn & Partners who drafted and filed the application and is a cousin of Mr Ilan De-Vries, Ms Ronit Tal who is an acquaintance of Liat De-Vries and Mr Yoram Hadar who is an industrial designer, also submitted affidavits. A hearing was held and the parties submitted their summaries.
Wet-Nap Ltd manufactures, exports and markets wet-wipes. The company had a business relationship with Packtop Ltd., a company directed by Mr Boaz Krystal that distributes wet-wipes amongst other things. At the time of filing, both the Krystals and the De-Vries couple were good friends.
There is no argument that Mr Boaz Krystal and Mrs Liat De-Vries met at the Wet-Nap Ltd factory, where Mr Boaz Krystal heard the idea of including baby ointment together with a package of wet-wipes from Mrs Liat De-Vries. There is also no argument that Mr Boaz Krystal and Mrs Liat De-Vries had some kind of collaboration, to develop and improve this invention and to file a patent application for it. Eventually a joint application was filed in both Mr Boaz Krystal and Mrs Liat De-Vries names. However, the parties disagree regarding Mr Krystal's contribution to the development of the invention and consequently disagree regarding whether he is to be considered an inventor and owner of the patent.
The Main Documents in the Prosecution File Wrapper
The Application was filed in November 2002 by Reinhold Cohn Patent Attorneys. The Application form lists both Mr Boaz Krystal and Mrs Liat De-Vries as joint owners due to them being inventions. Both parties filed Powers of Attorney, and the Filing Certificate gives both names.
On 10 December 2002, Adv. David De-Vries of Reinhold Cohn Patent Attorneys submitted a notice stating:
"Due to an office error, the name of the inventor, Mr Boaz Krystal was inserted as an Applicant. With our apologies for this, we are submitting a new cover sheet and application form in duplicate, listing Mr Boaz Krystal and Mrs Liat De-Vries as joint inventors, but Mrs Liat De-Vries as the sole owner."
On 10 December 2002, Adv. Edna Haruti, now Mr Krystal's representative, submitted a letter in which it was stated that Mr Krystal was a joint owner together with Mrs Liat De-Vries as he had invented the tissue container with auxiliary compartment together with her. Adv. Edna Haruti also noted that registration of the patent in the name of Mrs Liat De-Vries only was contrary to the agreement between the parties.
On 2 February 2003 Patent Attorney Shimon Shalit, then Senior Examiner in charge of formalities at the Israel Patent Office, responded to both Reinhold Cohn and to Mr Krystal that Mr Krystal could not be removed as an owner in the application as filed, since there was no indication that he had assigned his invention to Mrs Liat De-Vries prior to the application being filed. In absence of such proof, since Mr Krystal was not an employee of Mrs De-Vries, by virtue of being a co-inventor, he was also a co-owner.
(As an aside – On 12 March 2006 Mrs De-Vries submitted a divisional application of IL 152867 for certain applications of the invention. This divisional application (IL 174309) was examined, allowed and issued as a patent. On 1 December 2010 IL 174309 lapsed due to failure to pay the renewal fees. That patent is not directly relevant to this Opposition, but Wet-Naps Ltd and Liat De-Vries related to it in their claims).
In the protocol of a hearing held on 5 February 2007 before then Deputy Commissioner Noah Smulevezh it was decided to defer the issue of ownership until the examination of the application was completed. It was further ruled that Reinhold Cohn would be address of record, but would update Mr Krystal or his representative regarding actions taken to get his input before responding to office actions. The patent application was eventually allowed and published for opposition purposes, resulting in this opposition proceeding.
The Opposers' (Wet-Naps Ltd and Mrs Liat De-Vries) Main Claims
Mrs De-Vries and Wet-Naps Ltd claimed to have thought of the idea and developed the invention whereas Mr Krystal had merely provided technical drawings and a business plan for commercializing the product. They alleged that during the period in question, Mr Krystal provided technical and consultancy services to the company as almost an in-house service provider and as such, was exposed to the invention. They further claimed that Mr Yoram Hadar (industrial designer) and Patent Attorney David De-Vries provided sketches for the product that eventually evolved into the patent application. They further alleged that Mr Krystal had suggested a specific implementation (embodiment?) – storing the cream in a blister pack or sachets, which developed into Read the rest of this entry »


text:
GraphicRiver Organization & Community Logo 8405788
Logo Template \ Humans
People \ Resizable \ Editable \ Illustrator \ Version \ Created \ Template
Logo Template - Organization & Community Logo 8405788 by rioandrew @ GraphicRiver
Logo Template \ Humans
Awesome logo template for people community, people unity, charity or nonprofit organization, or others related business.
100% Editable & Resizable
This logo is well organized/layered and created from 100% vector shapes (editable & resizable).
Print and Web Ready
All my logos are created in CMYK color format, to ensure that your logo will remain consistent in print and also for use on the web.
What you get.
- One awesome logo
- Full color logo (Horizontal & Vertical version)
- AI file (for Illustrator CS5 or higher)
- EPS file in Version 10 (for Illustrator / Coral Draw / Freehand)
- Read Me file which contains help and information about font
Font(s) Used
- Bebas
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this logo template.
Cheers, Andrew.
Layered: Yes; Graphics Files Included: Vector EPS, AI Illustrator; Resolution: Resizable; Minimum Adobe CS Version: CS5.
Seaside Cottage & Resort; Health & Fruit Man; House & Home Blog; Find Local Person; 16 Snow Shapes Vector Collection 1.
Keywords: blue, charity, class, community, gather, gathering, green, group, nonprofit, organization, people, person, star, united, unity.


text:
Follow my Blog!
Recent Posts
- Adoption—Harbor Lights
- "Adoption—Life is a Challenge"
- Adoption—Bubbles in Time
- The History of Adoption
- Adoption – The Sublime Confidence of Youth
- "Adoption—Blest Be the Tie That Binds"
- "Adoption—Infants remember more than you think"
- Similarities between Golf and Adoption
- Adoption—On a Wing and a Prayer
- Pets benefit adopted children…
- "You're Adopted!"
- Adoption—"The Best of Times…the Worst of Times"
- Adoption—Self-discovery and Moral Character
- The Stigma of Adoption
- Adoption—Shadows of Ancestors Past
- Adoption—Individual Choice verses Collective Action
- "Woo Hoo!—I found my Grandparents."
- Adoption—Its Pub Weather Today
- Adoption—Parents who live vicariously
- Empathy is more than a simple act of kindness, sympathy, prayer, or pity
- Adoption—Robinson Crusoe Syndrome
- "Adoption and Behavioral Foxhole Syndrome"
- "Adoption—A thousand reasons to be angry"
- Adoption—Are you burned out?
- "Adoption—An Affair of the Heart"
- Reactive Attachment Disorder – RAD
- "Adoption—Stowaway Orphan from Peru found in London train station"
- Adoption Detective—Judith Land Quotes
- Adoption—"Letting Go!"
- Adoption—"The Point of No Return"
- Adoption—Can you die from a broken heart?
- Adoption—How similar are you to your Mother?
- "Adoption—communicating with poems, songs and love letters"
- "Adoption—the exhilaration of accomplishing something extraordinary"
- "Adoption—Don't be a worrywart!"
- Adoption—a warm blanket of complacency
- "Adoption—Internal fears lead to procrastination"
- Are you planning an adoption reunion?
- Have you ever dreamed of reconnecting with someone from your past?
- "Adoption reunions and personal confidence"
- "Adoption—Fairytales and Tarradiddles"
- "Adoption—Do writers live a dog's life?"
- "Adoption—we cry because we are human"
- Adoption—can happiness be learned?
- "Adoption and self-determinism"
- "Adoption—concealed carry!"
- A radio Interview with Judith Land
- "Adoption—Life is a Dance!"
- Adoption—Are you an egghead or a potato head?
- Adoption—I found my "foster parents!"
- What's a "Foundling Wheel?"
- "Adoption—picking up the pieces from here on after"
- "Adoption stories are like bad knees and sore backs!"
- "Adoption—saints, sinners and the salvageable"
- "Adoption—life is like riding a bicycle"
- The adoption narrative—what is the thematic conflict of your adoption story?
- "The legend of the twin boys adopted by a wolf"
- "Adoption—life is like a zip-line; it just goes whizzing by…"
- "Adoption—ancient yearnings for a true sense of belonging"
- "Adoption searches—make no small plans, they have no magic to stir your blood"
- Mother and child separation induces severe psychological stress in animals
- "Are you an adoptee who feels like a weed, out of place and unloved?"
- "Adopted—going topless in Tahiti"
- "Adoption story—the old wedding shoes"
- Adoption—Last Will and Testament and Inheritance
- "Adoption search—a sense of urgency!"
- "Adoption—the Santa Claus Syndrome"
- "Adoption stories—my mother's oil paintings"
- "Adopted? Metamorphose yourself into a butterfly."
- Adoption—a course in miracles! —Judith Land
- "Adoption—forgiveness and second chances"
- "Adoption—the sentimental value of mementos and heirlooms"
- "Adoption Discovery—I have a brother and two sisters?"
- "Adoption—I pity the babies in the back row"
- "Adoption—the only thing adoptees have is hope" Judith Land
- "Adoption—The Prophet Muhammad was adopted and the father of an adopted son"
- "Adoption—how far can you see?"
- "My adoption involved a wild car chase—just like in the movies…"
- Scared speechless—adopted children with selective mutism
- Adoption and "Xenophobia Parentis Syndrome"
- "Adoption—navigating the labyrinth of life in solitude"
- Crimes against the Canadian "Duplessis Orphans"
- Unwed mothers asylums—horrifying tales of the Magdalene laundries
- Adoption search—what's in your piñata?
- Adoption—a clash between conscience and passion!
- Adoption—should I spy on my birth mother?
- Adoption—your birth mother played the violin
- Adoption—chance encounters with biological family members!
- Adoption—what's in it for the social worker?
- Adoption—Surgeon General launches "Family Medical History Initiative"
- "Adoption—the end of Ozzie and Harriet families" Judith Land
- Adoption—a vision from God—a turning point in life!
- "Adoption Reunion—with cousin Johnny!"
- "Adoption searches—euphoric highs and melancholic lows!"
- Adoption reunion—"I gave my birth father a massive heart attack!"
- What is National Adoption Day?
- "Dear Mom—I miss you!"
- "Adoption—Freedom from Want!"
- Adoption—are you teetering on the edge of the abyss?
- "Adoption search— planes, trains and gondolas!"
Follow my Blog!
- June 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
Judith Land Blog
Monthly Archives: January 2016
Adoption Detective—Judith Land Quotes
Choices – Our lives are the sum of all the choices we make, the bridges we cross, and the ones we burn. Our souls cast long shadows over many people, even after we are gone. Orphans – Each personal … Continue reading
Posted in Adoption, Books, Parenting, Relationships Tagged ADOPTION, Adoption Detective, Judith Land, primal wound 4 Comments
Adoption—"Letting Go!"
Some adoptees are surrounded with a corona of emotional trauma—a dark ethereal haze that shields them from feeling the warmth of the sun, enjoying the vastness and awe of nature, and appreciating the vivid colors and hue of a golden … Continue reading
Posted in Adoption, Children, Parenting, Relationships Tagged ADOPTION, Adoption Detective, children, Judith Land, letting go, Parenting Leave a comment
Adoption—"The Point of No Return"
"In every life event, including adoption, adoption searches and reunions, there are pivotal events beyond which one's current course of action is set and beyond which there is no return. Nobody understands this metaphor better than the airplane pilot who … Continue reading
Posted in Adoption, Parenting, Relationships Tagged ADOPTION, Adoption Detective, Adoption Search, Judith Land, Parenting, point of no return, Rubicon Leave a comment
Adoption—Can you die from a broken heart?
"The intense emotional pain and stress resulting from unrequited love, disassociation, severance, rejection, adoption, divorce and the death of a loved one have always been associated with broken hearts. World literature, songs, and poems in every language are filled with … Continue reading


text:
The Gowanus Expressway is a big polluter and a traffic nightmare. Some see putting the road underground as a solution.
Crain's New York Business
New research from the American Heart Association measures sudden cardiac death and proximity to major roadways, showing that cardiac risks posed by environmental exposure have been under-appreciated. The next step is to find the specific cause.
Science Daily
With evidence on the harmful health impacts of vehicle emissions increasing, the EPA will begin monitoring pollution levels adjacent to freeways in Los Angeles and more than 100 of America's biggest cities. Experts say the action is long overdue.
Los Angeles Times
While pollution from vehicle exhausts has been known for some time to exacerbate the symptoms of asthma, a new study published in the European Respiratory Journal establishes for the first time the direct causal link between the two.
Discovery News
A new report from the Health Effect Institute concludes that there is a strong correlation between exposure to traffic and heart ailments.
The New York Times
Leaders in Arlington, Texas, near Dallas, are studying how to reduce pollution generated by idling cars at drive-thru windows.


text:
Kyocera wants to change that with its Hydro Shore, a smartphone with IP57 certification (resistance to one meter deep for half an hour) that is priced at only 79 US Dollars, about 70 Euros to direct change.
The terminal has a 5-inch screen with a resolution of only 960 x 540 with 210 Snapdragon processor and only 1GB of RAM with 8GB of storage and 4G. It is powered by a 2,160 mAh battery and has cameras 2 and 5 MP for the front and rear respectively. The operating system used is Android 5.1.
It is clear that this is not the specifications of a high-end, rather the opposite, but the fact of their resistance IP57 can make it an ideal for those who want an aid to take to the beach smartphone option.
At the moment it is available in supermarkets and WalMart do not know if reach Spain


text:
2335 BURTON ST SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49506Request info Add to list
To view building contacts please sign in with your Pro account or create a pro account.
Andy R.
Company: requires Pro account
Email: requires Pro account
Phone: requires Pro account
Building Details:
• Year Built: 1971
2335 BURTON ST SE is an office property for lease in Grand Rapids, MI.
Nice Office space available just off the corner of Burton & Breton which is near Breton Village Shopping Center! Competitive rate allows you to get into this professional office building without cutting into your budget!
SPECIAL NOTES: Subject to Landlord`s approval of Tenant`s use and credit.
LANDLORD PROVIDES: Gas/Heat, Insurance, Refuse Removal, Sewer, Snow Removal, Taxes, Water, Other
TENANT PROVIDES: Electric, Insurance, Phone, Janitorial
Request Property Information
Please describe your commercial real estate requirements. We'll introduce you to local properties that match your criteria.


text:
This scholarship is awarded to the most meritorious applicants who are engaged in studying nursing at the Associate Degree, Bachelor degree, Master's degree or RN-BSN levels. The candidates must be of Arab heritage, citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
Cycle: Annually
$500 to $1000
Number of Awards: Varies
Is the scholarship auto renew: No
National American Arab Nurses Association
PO Box 43
Dearborn Heights, MI 48127
Find schools and get information on the program that's right for you.
Powered by Campus Explorer


text:
Mechanic 2 Resurrection (2016) 1CD x264 SCREENER-CAM AAC 2.0 Cleaned Audio-DDR
Size: 732625335 bytes (698.69 MiB), duration: 01:35:05, avg.bitrate: 1027 kb/s
Audio: aac, 48000 Hz, stereo, s16 (eng)
Video: h264, yuv420p, 704x288, 24.00 fps(r) (eng)
Genre: Action, Crime, Thriller
IMDB info
Arthur Bishop thought he had put his murderous past behind him when his most formidable foe kidnaps the love of his life. Now he is forced to travel the globe to complete three impossible assassinations, and do what he does best, make them look like accidents.
Buy Premium Account From My Download Links And Get Resumable Support & SUPER Fastest speed
http://uploadgig.com/file/download/DBE69969b5904fE5/Mechanic Resurrection 2016 1CD x264 SCREENER-CAM AAC 2.0 Cleaned Audio-DDR.mkv


text:
Profile Created for Self
34 years/ 5Ft. 9In. (175 cm)
Vocational Course
Never Married
Computer Professional
Lives in Oman, Karnataka
Hindu, Vokkaliga
Detailed profile
About MI-407999
I have Been Born & Brought Up in Bangalore. I have Studied & Worked Here.now Currently Working in MuscatOman.i am a Very Passionate Person Be It Work Family or Hitting the Event. I Love the Outdoors. Especially Hikes and Treks. During My Weekends I like to Travel Socialize with Friends and Explore New Places and Cuisines. Till Now I Explored North South India Muscat. I Do However Enjoy the Occasional Home Alone Time Relaxing and Sipping Hot Cup of Tea While Watching a Good Movie. I am Independent and like Maintaining a Good Work-life Balance.my Beliefs About Marriage Family and the Person I am Looking to Spend the Rest of My Life with Believe that Marriage is a Unique Bond Between Two Mature Individuals. It is a Relationship Based On a Deep Level of Trust Mutual Understanding Love and Respect for One Another. I Believe that Two People Who Share Similar Family Values and Who are Comfortable in Sharing Their Thoughts Experiences and Interests Can Take Their Relationship to the Next Level.i am Looking for An Individual Who Shares My Sentiments and Respects Me for Who I Am. if You Think My Profile Interests You Reach Out to Me. br i am Looking for a Girl Who Can Better Understand Me and Should Be Supportive Throughout My Life.
All Rights Reserved - MatrimonialsIndia.Com (2000)
Web Design by WeblinkIndia.NET


text:
TOTE Services is a leading U.S.-based ship management company, fully certified to comply with the Safety, Quality, and Environmental requirements of the ABS Guide for Marine Health, Safety, Quality, Environmental, and Energy Management. Providing uncompromised service to affiliated ship owners, U.S. Government, domestic and international third-party ship owners.
Since 1975, TOTE Services has provided full technical management and partial management/crewing services for nearly one-hundred vessels of various sizes and configurations. Our focus is on safety, environmentally sound operations, high quality maintenance programs and achieving customer goals. Services are tailored to the vessel and the needs of the client, from special projects to full technical management.
TOTE Services has provided the following vessels full technical management or partial management/crewing services during the past 15 years.
- Since 2012, TOTE Services has served as the ship operators for Military Sealift Command's USNS WHEELER, an Offshore Petroleum Distribution System (OPDS). This vessel can transfer fuel from a tanker to depots ashore from up to eight miles off the coast. TOTE Services also manages the USNS FAST TEMPO which supports the USNS WHEELER.
- Under TOTE Services supervision, SBX-1, a self-propelled, semi-submersible mobile offshore platform, was converted to a self-propelled RADAR platform for the Missile Defense Agency. TOTE Services continues to manage SBX-1 under a contract with Military Sealift Command. Management has included taking SBX-1 through the original 2003 conversion process, sea trials, design modifications, establishment of Classification Society Survey Rules, as well as development and implementation of the preventative maintenance system, procedures/schedules, and all aspects of Marine Operations.
- TOTE Services managed the technical conversion of MV Pacific Collector and S/S Pacific Tracker, two government owned Tracking and Telemetry ships, in service for the Missile Defense Agency. These ships are maintained in ROS-5 status and have been activated by TOTE Services in response to both scheduled missions and no-notice mission activations.
- Management of the Offshore Petroleum Discharge System (OPDS) tanker SS Petersburg, which is currently in a reduced operating status, berthed in San Francisco, CA.
- TOTE Services maintains the Cape Horn and Cape Hudson, two government-owned, diesel powered Roll-on/Roll-off ships berthed in San Francisco, CA in an ROS-5 status. Both have undergone maintenance activations and Sea Trials well within the prescribed ROS time frames.
- TOTE Services maintains the S/S Altair and S/S Bellatrix, two government-owned, Fast Sealift Ships (FSS) in ROS-5 status. Both ships are classified as vehicle carriers and are of the former SL7 class. Both ships have been activated and Sea Trialed within the prescribed ROS time frames.
- TOTE Services maintains the S/S Cornhusker State, S/S Flickertail State and S/S Gopher State, three government-owned Tactical Auxiliary Crane Ships (TACS). The vessels are currently in a reduced operating status, berthed in Newport News, VA.
- TOTE Services is the prime contractor responsible for the maintenance, surveillance and monitoring of the nuclear ship (NS) Savannah. This nuclear ship is maintained by TOTE Services in decommissioning protective storage. Our company works together with the U.S. Department of Transportation Maritime Administration and our teaming partners to provide ship husbandry services, radiological protection and nuclear license technical support to maintain the license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
- On January 1st, 2015, TOTE Services became the ship manager for American Roll-On Roll-Off Carrier (ARC) managing seven U.S. flagged, deep draft, commercial Roll-on Roll-off (RORO) ships. This fleet trades globally with primary routes set between the U.S. East Coast, Gulf Coast to Northern Europe, and between Asia-U.S. West Coast. These ships are part of the Maritime Security Program and also support the U.S. Military / United States Transportation Command (USTRANCOM) as required.
TOTE Services provides marine management services, shore side supervision, Licensed Officers and Unlicensed crew members to perform major-conversion and new construction dock trials, builder's trials and acceptance trials for major U.S. shipbuilders.
Tasking / requirements necessary to conduct these activities include the following management and operational aspects:
- Initial provision and sundries ordering, receipt and storing
- Fit-out of galley, hotel and accommodations
- Vetting, selection and training of light-off and trial crews
- Management of statutory and regulatory requirements in preparation of trials
- Safe operation and management of the ships in accordance with statutory, regulatory and classification society requirements
- Emergency response and casualty control
- Perform systems activations and testing


text:
Back to List
Izzy's infinity evolved server (normal mode)
Use the discord link: https://discord.gg/d7aZ5aB to get in with me and my friends, once there we will share the server ip with you. we look forward to playing!
User ReviewsAdd Review
There are no reviews for this server yet, you can be the first!