An Introduction to U.S. Export Control: Regulations for Patent Practitioners

This article presents basic information on the U.S. export control laws most relevant to U.S. patent practice, including the preparation and filing of patent applications related to commercial items, and the intended audience of this article is the U.S. patent practitioner who does not routinely deal with export-controlled subject matter. If the patent practitioner intends to: export technical information from the U.S. for the purpose of having a patent application prepared; hire or work with foreign nationals (who may or may not actually be in the U.S.) in conducting technical research or patentability and invalidity searches; or help prepare patent applications for filing, the practitioner is encouraged to become familiar with the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations as discussed below, or to consult an export control practitioner for further guidance

Ericsson INC., AND Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Samsung Elecs. CO, LTD., Samsung Elecs. America

Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Brief of International Intellectual Property Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Part

Rand Patents and Exclusion Orders: Submission of 19 Economics and Law Professors to the International Trade Commission

In this comment to ITC Investigation 337-TA-745 (Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Motorola v. Apple) we, as teachers and scholars of economics, antitrust and intellectual property, remedies, administrative, and international intellectual property law, former Department of Justice lawyers and chief economists, a former executive official at the Patent and Trademark Office, a former counsel at the ITC Office of the General Counsel, and a former Member of the President’s Council of Economic Adviser take the position that ITC exclusion orders generally should not be granted under § 1337(d)(1) on the basis of patents subject to obligations to license on “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) terms. Doing so would undermine the significant pro-competitive and pro-consumer benefits that RAND promises produce and the investments they enable. A possible exception may arise if district court jurisdiction is lacking, the patent is valid and infringed, and the public interest favors issuing an exclusion order. We explain our position in the comment

Expectations for Manuscripts on Biomass Feedstocks and Processing in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering

N/

Putting to rest WISHE-ful misconceptions for tropical cyclone intensification

The purpose of this article is twofold. The first is to point out and correct several misconceptions about the putative WISHE mechanism of tropical cyclone intensification that currently are being taught to atmospheric science students, to tropical weather forecasters, and to laypeople who seek to understand how tropical cyclones intensify. The mechanism relates to the simplest problem of an initial cyclonic vortex in a quiescent environment. This first part is important because the credibility of tropical cyclone science depends inter alia on being able to articulate a clear and consistent picture of the hypothesized intensification process and its dependencies on key flow parameters. The credibility depends also on being able to test the hypothesized mechanisms using observations, numerical models, or theoretical analyses. The second purpose of the paper is to carry out new numerical experiments using a state-of-the-art numerical model to test a recent hypothesis invoking the WISHE feedback mechanism during the rapid intensification phase of a tropical cyclone. The results obtained herein, in conjunction with prior work, do not support this recent hypothesis and refute the view that the WISHE intensification mechanism is the essential mechanism of tropical cyclone intensification in the idealized problem that historically has been used to underpin the paradigm. This second objective is important because it presents a simple way of testing the hypothesized intensification mechanism and shows that the mechanism is neither essential nor the dominant mode of intensification for the prototype intensification problem. In view of the operational, societal, and scientific interest in the physics of tropical cyclone intensification, we believe this paper will be of broad interest to the atmospheric science community and the findings should be useful in both the classroom setting and frontier research

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit’s dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system

The Evolution of ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering

N/

Expectations for Manuscripts in ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering: Scope Summary and Call for Creativity

N/

Isolation and analysis of high quality nuclear DNA with reduced organellar DNA for plant genome sequencing and resequencing

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High throughput sequencing (HTS) technologies have revolutionized the field of genomics by drastically reducing the cost of sequencing, making it feasible for individual labs to sequence or resequence plant genomes. Obtaining high quality, high molecular weight DNA from plants poses significant challenges due to the high copy number of chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA, as well as high levels of phenolic compounds and polysaccharides. Multiple methods have been used to isolate DNA from plants; the CTAB method is commonly used to isolate total cellular DNA from plants that contain nuclear DNA, as well as chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA. Alternatively, DNA can be isolated from nuclei to minimize chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA contamination.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We describe optimized protocols for isolation of nuclear DNA from eight different plant species encompassing both monocot and eudicot species. These protocols use nuclei isolation to minimize chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA contamination. We also developed a protocol to determine the number of chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA copies relative to the nuclear DNA using quantitative real time PCR (qPCR). We compared DNA isolated from nuclei to total cellular DNA isolated with the CTAB method. As expected, DNA isolated from nuclei consistently yielded nuclear DNA with fewer chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA copies, as compared to the total cellular DNA prepared with the CTAB method. This protocol will allow for analysis of the quality and quantity of nuclear DNA before starting a plant whole genome sequencing or resequencing experiment.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Extracting high quality, high molecular weight nuclear DNA in plants has the potential to be a bottleneck in the era of whole genome sequencing and resequencing. The methods that are described here provide a framework for researchers to extract and quantify nuclear DNA in multiple types of plants.</p