USA Today report:
Saturday, July 5, 2014
Friday, July 4, 2014
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
face book and patents on genes
Today, Kojo Nnamdi's show was all about face book's misbehavior in experimenting on their customers by posting sad or happy items to see how it could influence their moods.
The experiments were reported in the NYT.
Needless to say, this practice has terrifying implications. You don't need much imagination to see how depressives could be pushed towards suicide, or bipolars would be driven to psychotic episodes. The conversation got around to the IRB, Independent Review Board, required for any psychologist who wants to experiment on human subjects. This is exactly the kind of thing I discussed in "Other Peoples Bodies." See page 80, or watch the video at t=1 hour.
Also as I predicted in the book, we now see a plethora of litigation on patents on genes.
Congress should act now to incorporate an IRB in the Patent Office, to review all patents on genes!
BTW, this is my 100th post, so I tried to make it a doozy. Please comment if you agree or disagree.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
face book and patents on genes
Today, Kojo Nnamdi's show was all about face book's misbehavior in experimenting on their customers by posting sad or happy items to see how it could influence their moods.
The experiments were reported in the NYT.
Needless to say, this practice has terrifying implications. You don't need much imagination to see how depressives could be pushed towards suicide, or bipolars would be driven to psychotic episodes. The conversation got around to the IRB, Independent Review Board, required for any psychologist who wants to experiment on human subjects. This is exactly the kind of thing I discussed in "Other Peoples Bodies." See page 80, or watch the video at t=1 hour.
Also as I predicted in the book, we now see a plethora of litigation on patents on genes.
Congress should act now to incorporate an IRB in the Patent Office, to review all patents on genes!
BTW, this is my 100th post, so I tried to make it a doozy. Please comment if you agree or disagree.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
The Empire Loses Big - Again
The Empire, Myriad and associates, has been walloped again by a federal court. In the Ambry case Myriad tried to assert its BRCA patents. The District Court threw Myriad out of court in a stinging 100+ page opinion. Thanks to David Koepsell for updating us on this development. You can read the opinion and his update when you go to his blog.. Thanks to him also for his link to the NYT report of the case.
Is Dolly the Sheep Appealing?
Dolly the sheep case:
The losers, owners of the patent application, have until August 7, 2014 to appeal the case, i.e. petition the US Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari.
See the excerpts from the court records below.
Will the losers appeal?
I think they would be just wasting their money, unless they are just after the publicity. This may backfire, as it is in actuality negative publicity.
in the high patent court:
05/08/2014 35 OPINION filed. The decision is: Affirmed. (Precedential Opinion). (For the Court: Dyk,Circuit Judge; Moore,Circuit Judge and Wallach,Circuit Judge). [153181]
UNITED STATES COURT O}' APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
INFORMATION SHEET
FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
There is no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States from judgments
ofthe Federal Circuit. You must file a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court
will grant only when there are compelling reasons. (See Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of the United States, hereinafter called Rules.)
Time. The petition must be filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 days of
the entry ofjudgment in this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for
rehearing. The judgment is entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in your
case. [The time does not run from the issuance of the mandate, which has no effect on the right
to petition.] (See Rule 13 of the Rules.)
Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an
affidavit in support thereof must accompany the petition. (See Rules 38 and 39.)
Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of
the United States or by the petitioner representing himself or herself.
Format of a Petition. The Rules are very specific about the order of the required information
and should be consulted before you start drafting your petition. (See Rule 14.) Rules 33 and 34
should be consulted regarding type size and font, paper size, paper weight, margins, page limits,
cover, etc.
Number of Copies. Forty copies of a petition must be filed unless the petitioner is proceeding in
forma pauperis, in which case an original and ten copies of the petition for writ of certiorari and
of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rule 12.)
Where to File. You must file your documents at the Supreme Court.
Clerk
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20543
(202) 479-3000
No documents are filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no information to
the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
Access to the Rules. The current rules can be found in Title 28 of the United States Code
Annotated and other legal publications available in many public libraries.
Revised December 16, 1999
Case: 13-1407 Document: 35-4 Page: 1 Filed: 05/08/2014
Dolly and the Fishes
The Prolume cases (see) have been terminated at the District Court level. See below.
The cases related to patents on animals, particularly luminescent fish. This issue is moot since Dolly was held unpatentable.
3:13-cv-00130-BEN-BLM Prolume, LTD. v. Gentarget, Inc. et al
Roger T. Benitez, presiding
Barbara Lynn Major, referral
Date filed: 01/16/2013
Date terminated: 01/15/2014
Date of last filing: 03/03/2014
The cases related to patents on animals, particularly luminescent fish. This issue is moot since Dolly was held unpatentable.
Roger T. Benitez, presiding
Barbara Lynn Major, referral
Date filed: 01/16/2013
Date terminated: 01/15/2014
Date of last filing: 03/03/2014
Case Summary
| Office: San Diego | Filed: 01/16/2013 | |||||||||
| Jury Demand: Plaintiff | Demand: | |||||||||
| Nature of Suit: 830 | Cause: 35:145 Patent Infringement | |||||||||
| Jurisdiction: Federal Question | Disposition: Dismissed - Voluntarily | |||||||||
| County: XX US, Outside State | Terminated: 01/15/2014 | |||||||||
| Origin: 1 | Reopened: | |||||||||
| Lead Case: | None | |||||||||
| Related Case: | None | Other Court Case: None | ||||||||
| Defendant Custody Status: | ||||||||||
| Flag: CLOSED | ||||||||||
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Patent for a Down Syndrome Test
Lest we forget...
The Sequenom case involves a Patent for a Down Syndrome Test
throw it out of court,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)