Neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease is genetically heterogeneous

Neuronal intranuclear inclusion disease (NIID) is a clinically heterogeneous neurodegenerative condition characterized by pathological intranuclear eosinophilic inclusions. A CGG repeat expansion in NOTCH2NLC was recently identified to be associated with NIID in patients of Japanese descent. We screened pathologically confirmed European NIID, cases of neurodegenerative disease with intranuclear inclusions and applied in silico-based screening using whole-genome sequencing data from 20 536 participants in the 100 000 Genomes Project. We identified a single European case harbouring the pathogenic repeat expansion with a distinct haplotype structure. Thus, we propose new diagnostic criteria as European NIID represents a distinct disease entity from East Asian cases

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

Removal of heavy metals using different polymer matrixes as support for bacterial immobilisation

Great attention is focused on the microbial treatment of metal contaminated environments. Three bacterial strains, 1C2, 1ZP4 and EC30, belonging to genera Cupriavidus, Sphingobacterium and Alcaligenes, respectively, showing high tolerance to Zn and Cd, up to concentrations of 1000ppm, were isolated from a contaminated area in Northern Portugal. Their contribution to Zn and Cd removal from aqueous streams using immobilised alginate, pectate and a synthetic cross-linked polymer was assessed. In most cases, matrices with immobilised bacteria showed better metal removal than the non-inoculated material alone. For the immobilisation with all the polymers, 1C2 was the strain that increased the removal of Zn the most, whereas EC30 was the most promising for Cd removal, especially when combined with the synthetic polymer with up to a ca. 11-fold increase in metal removal when compared to the polymer alone. Removal of individual metals from binary mixtures showed that there was differential immobilisation. There was greater removal of Cd than Zn (removals up to 40% higher than those showed for Zn). The results show that metal contaminated environments constitute a reservoir of microorganisms resistant/tolerant to heavy metals that have the capacity to be exploited in bioremediation strategies.Capsule immobilisation of bacteria in the naturally occurring alginate and pectate and in a synthetic cross-linked polymer increased the Zn and Cd removal abilities from single and binary contaminated waters; the applications with the synthetic polymer were the most promising for Cd and Zn removal in single and binary mixtures

Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition of Writ of Certiorari, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Brands Group LLC, No. 16341, (U.S. Oct. 17, 2016)

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