DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Licensing Reform Act of 1988 Hearing

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Licensing Reform Act of 1988 Hearing PATENT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1988 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUETS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4086 PATENT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1988 MAY 11, 1988 Serial No. 103 fpj //*-' X'-'. <W -7 f/ij Vc X Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary PATENT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1988 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COUETS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 4086 PATENT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1988 MAY 11, 1988 Serial No. 103 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 87-714 ±5 WASHINGTON 1989 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office US Government Printing Office Washington DC 20402 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PETER W RODINO, JR , New Jersey, Chairman JACK BROOKS, Texas HAMILTON FISH, JR , New York ROBERT W KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin CARLOS J MOORHEAD, California DON EDWARDS, California HENRY J HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, JR , Michigan DAN LUNGREN, California ROMANO L MAZZOLI, Kentucky F JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., WILLIAM J HUGHES, New Jersey Wisconsin MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma BILL McCOLLUM, Florida PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado E CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas GEORGE W GEKAS, Pennsylvania BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts MICHAEL DEWINE, Ohio GEO W CROCKETT, JR , Michigan WILLIAM E DANNEMEYER, California CHARLES E SCHUMER, New York PATRICK L SWINDALL Georgia BRUCE A MORRISON, Connecticut HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina EDWARD F FEIGHAN, Ohio D FRENCH SLAUGHTER, JR , Virginia LAWRENCE J SMITH, Florida LAMAR S SMITH, Texas HOWARD L BERMAN, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia HARLEY 0 STAGGERS, JR , West Virginia JOHN BRYANT, Texas BENJAMIN L CARDIN, Maryland M ELAINE MIELKE, General Counsel ARTHUR P ENDRES, JR , Staff Director ALAN F COFFEY, JR , Associate Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ROBERT W KASTENMEIER, Wisconsin, Chairman MIKE SYNAR, Oklahoma CARLOS J MOORHEAD, California PATRICIA SCHROEDER, Colorado HENRY J HYDE, Illinois GEO W CROCKETT JK , Michigan DAN LUNGREN, California BRUCE A MORRISON, Connecticut MICHAEL DEWINE, Pennsylvania HOWARD L BERMAN, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina RICK BOUCHER, Virginia D FRENCH SLAUGHTER JR, Virginia JOHN BRYANT, Texas BENJAMIN L CARDIN, Maryland MICHAEL J REMINGTON, Chief Counsel DAVID W BEIER, Counsel VIRGINIA E SLOAN, Counsel SUSAN L COSKEY, Counsel THOMAS E MOONEY, Associate Counsel JOSEPH V WOLFE, Associate Counsel (II) CONTENTS TEXT OF BILL HR 4086 2 OPENING STATEMENTS The Honorable Robert W Kastenmeier, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice 8 The Honorable Carlos J Moorhead, a Representative in Congress from the State of California 46 WITNESSES Charles F Rule, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U S Depart­ ment of Justice 11 Prepared statement 14 Rene D Tegtmeyer, Assistant Commissioner for Patents, Patent and Trade­ mark Office, US Department of Commerce 11 Prepared statement 33 Herbert F Schwartz, Esq, Managing Partner, Fish & Neave, New York, NY, Professor, School of Law, University of Pennsylvania 126 Prepared statement 128 Robert P Taylor, Esq, Partner, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, CA, on behalf of the American Bar Association 126 Prepared statement with attachments 140 Robert P Merges, Professor, School of Law, Columbia University 126 Prepared statement 170 ADDITIONAL MATERIALS Letter from Thomas M Boyd, Actmg Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, U S Department of Justice, and Donald J Quigg, Assistant Secretary and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Patent and Trademark Office, U S Department of Commerce, to the Honorable Robert W Kastenmeier (August 15, 1988), with attach­ ments 50 APPENDIX 134 Cong Rec H 698-99 (daily ed March 3, 1988) (statement of Rep Kasten­ meier) 199 Letter from Hartmut Johannes, Directorate General IV, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belguim, to Chairman Kastenmeier (April 26, 1988), with attachments 201 Letter from Chairman Kastenmeier to Mr Rule (May 16, 1988), with attach­ ments 269 Statement from Thomas M Susman, Esq, Ropes & Gray, Washington, DC, on behalf of Digital Equipment Corporation 274 Report from Mr Susman, Congress Should Require a Violation of the Anti­ trust Laws Before a Tying Arrangement is Condemned as Patent Misuse" (October 6,1988) 287 Letter from Mr Susman to David W Beier, Counsel, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice (September 28, 1988), with attachment 299 <ui) IV Page Report from Mr Susman and Wendy R Gerlach, Ropes & Gray, "The Need for Legislative Reform of the Law of Patent Misuse'^ (May 11, 1987) 309 Letter from Edward A Schwartz, Vice President, General Counsel and Secre­ tary, Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA, to Chairman Kasten- meier (October 26,1986) 316 Letter from John W Schlicher, Esq, Townsend and Townsend, to Chairman Kastenmeier (September 14, 1988), with attachment 317 Letter from William C Rooklidge, Esq, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, Newport Beach, CA, to Mr Susman (June 13, 1988), with attachment 339 Letter from Michael W Blommer, Executive Director, American Intellectual Property Law Association, Arlington, VA, to Mr Beier (August 14, 1987), with attachments 353 Letter from Andrew A Procassini, President, Semiconductor Industry Asso­ ciation, Cupertino, CA, to Michael J Remington, Chief Counsel, Subcom­ mittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice (Octo­ ber 27, 1987), with attachment 367 Letter from Professor Merges to Chairman Kastenmeier (December 15, 1987), with attachment 370 Letter from Professor Merges to Chairman Kastenmeier (November 16, 1987), with attachment 379 Letter from Lois D Rice, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Control Data, Washington, DC , to Chairman Kastenmeier (December 16,1987) 388 Letter from John E Peters, Vice President, Corporate Counsel and Secretary, Block Drug Company Inc , Jersey City, NJ, to Chairman Kastenmeier (Octo­ ber 20,1987) 390 Letter from S Allen Heimnger, President, Industrial Research Institute, Inc , to the Honorable Peter W Rodino, Jr, Chairman, Committee on the Judici­ ary (March 28, 1988), with attachments 392 Letter from Stephen S Willoughby, Chairman, Council of Scientific Society Presidents, Washington, DC, to Chairman Rodino (February 10, 1988) 405 PATENT LICENSING REFORM ACT OF 1988 WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1988 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p m, in room 2226, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert W Kastenmeier (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding Members present Representatives Kastenmeier, Cardin, Moor- head, DeWine, and Coble Staff present David W Beier, counsel, Thomas E Mooney, asso­ ciate counsel, and Veronica L Ehgan, clerk Mr KASTENMEIER The committee will come to order This afternoon the subcommittee will be conducting the first of a series of hearings on patent misuse, especially on H R 4086 and earlier Senate legislation [A copy of H R 4086 follows ] (l) 2 100TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION H. R. 4086 • To amend title 35, United States Code, to set forth the basis for determining whether a person has engaged in conduct constituting misuse or illegal extension of a patent, and for other purposes W THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MARCH 3, 1988 Mr KASTBNMEIBB introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary A BILL To amend title 35, United States Code, to set forth the basis for determining whether a person has engaged m conduct con­ stituting misuse or illegal extension of a patent, and for other purposes 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1 SHORT TITLE 4 This Act may be cited as the "Patent Licensmg Reform 5 Act of 1988" 3 2 1 SEC 2 DETERMINATION OF PATENT MISUSE OR ILLEGAL EX- 2 TENSION OF A PATENT 3 Section 271 of title 35, Umted States Code, is amended 4 by stnkmg out subsection (d) and inserting m lieu thereof the 5 following 6 "(d)(1) Any patent owner who engages m conduct con- 7 stituting misuse or illegal extension of the patent shall be 8 denied relief under this title for infringement of the patent 9 until such misuse or illegal extension terminates and the con- 10 sequences of such misuse or illegal extension have dissipated 11 "(2) For purposes of this title, the term 'misuse or llle- 12 gal extension' of a patent means, except as provided in para- 13 graph (3), includes— 14 "(A) tying the sale of a patented product to an 15 unpatented staple or the production of an unpatented 16 product to the use of a patented process, except to the 17 extent that the patent owner does not have market 18 power, 19 "(B) unreasonably imposing as a condition of 20 granting a license for a patent that the licensee may 21 not produce or sell competing goods, 22 "(C) unreasonably imposing as a condition of 23 granting a license under one patent that the licensee 24 accept another license under a different patent, 25 "(D) unreasonably entering into a royalty agree- 26 ment that provides for payments
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SENATE—Wednesday, October 26, 2005
    October 26, 2005 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 23679 SENATE—Wednesday, October 26, 2005 The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was pose of these amendments, and we will tion drug program that is about to called to order by the President pro announce when Senators can expect take effect. This flaw is a ticking time tempore (Mr. STEVENS). those votes. bomb for more than 6 million Ameri- I remind my colleagues that a clo- cans, for our communities and our PRAYER ture motion was filed last night on the health care providers. That fuse is The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Labor-HHS appropriations bill. That going to detonate on January 1. fered the following prayer: cloture vote will occur on Thursday We cannot allow low-income seniors Let us pray. morning. Under rule XXII, Senators and the disabled to lose their direct O God our rock, exalted above all have until 1 o’clock today to file their coverage. We cannot leave our doctors blessings and praise, the host of Heav- first-degree amendments at the desk. and hospitals and nursing homes un- en worships You. Today we praise You We will finish this bill this week. It is prepared for the biggest change in dec- for the opportunity of serving our up to the Senate to decide if we are ades. And we should not be pushing country in the Senate. Incline our going to be here late Thursday or Fri- hundreds of thousands of people who hearts to do Your will and set a guard day, but we will finish the bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Law Developments in China Symposium
    Symposium of the SIPO/US Bar Liaison Council With China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and the All China Patent Attorney Association (ACPAA) Patent Law Developments in China Symposium Monday, June 3, 2013 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 5th Ave, New York, NY 10003 1 About The Program . Join us for a discussion A one-day symposium focusing on Patent Law Developments in China. CN IP topics addressed by senior officials of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO) and speakers from the All China Patent Agent Association (ACPAA) and the SIPO/US Bar Liaison Council. The program will begin with a keynote address by SIPO Commissioner, Tian Lipu visiting from China. The program will then go on to cover various topics pertaining to Patent Law in China, The first portion of the program will focus on China patent issues and developments and the second portion will focus on US issues and developments within China patent law. 2 Symposium of the SIPO/US Bar Liaison Council With China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and the All China Patent Attorney Association (ACPAA) Patent Law Developments in China Symposium Monday, June 3, 2013 Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law 55 5th Ave, New York, NY 10003 Table of Contents About the Program ........................................................................................................................................ 2 CN Prosecution Issues Regarding CN Article 26.3 .................................................................................. 4 Has the Invention Been Sufficiently Disclosed in a Chinese Patent Application? ....................................... 5 Employment-Related Inventions--Rights/Remuneration SIPO Regulations ..................................... .22 Employment-Related Inventions-- Rights/Remuneration SIPO Regulations SIPO USBLC 06-2013 .....
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical & Life Sciences
    CHEMICAL & LIFE SCIENCES ChemicalYEAR IN REVIEW 2016 & Life Sciences Year in Review 2016 Washington,ARENT FOX LLP DC /DC Los / AngelesLA / NY // NewSF York / San Francisco / arentfox.com CHEMICAL & LIFE SCIENCES Table of Contents 2 YEAR IN REVIEW 2016 3 Introduction At the Supreme Court 4 As in previous years, 2016 brought us Subject Eligibility 8 a combination of both expected and On-Sale Bar unexpected holdings by the Supreme 10 Anticipation/ Court and the Federal Circuit. Obviousness The Supreme Court decided three patent cases in 2016, but the Court’s denial of certiorari in Ariosa v. Sequenom will have the most lasting impact on the prospects for 18 patenting in the life sciences. The Federal Circuit’s Ariosa decision—left undisturbed by Written Description the Court—precludes patenting most diagnostic methods that rely on generally known techniques, as being drawn to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Combined 19 with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Genetic Techs. v. Merial that allows adjudicating Indefiniteness § 101 eligibility questions on a motion to dismiss, the Ariosa decision rapidly changes the landscape for patenting diagnostics and potentially other life sciences inventions. 20 Claim Construction/ But there was at least one silver lining for life science patent owners this year. In Infringement Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld claims to a method of producing hepatocytes, finding that the claims are “directed 28 to” patent eligible subject matter, and although the method steps were individually Inequitable Conduct known, the process of repeating the steps was not routine and conventional.
    [Show full text]
  • Inequitable Conduct and Walker Process Claims After Therasense and the America † Invents Act
    INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND WALKER PROCESS CLAIMS AFTER THERASENSE AND THE AMERICA † INVENTS ACT Gideon Mark* T. Leigh Anenson** INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 362 I.THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ..................................................................................... 362 A.Elements of the Inequitable Conduct Defense ............................ 364 B.Effects of the Inequitable Conduct Defense ................................ 369 II.THERASENSE ...................................................................................... 376 A.Procedural History of Therasense ............................................... 376 B.Majority Opinion ......................................................................... 377 C.PTO Proposed Rulemaking ......................................................... 380 D.The Negative Impact of Therasense ............................................ 381 E. Walker Process Antitrust Claims............................................... 394 III.AMERICA INVENTS ACT ................................................................. 404 A.Post-Issuance Review ................................................................. 405 1.Background ........................................................................... 405 † A condensed version of this article appeared as a chapter in THE CHANGING FACE OF US PATENT LAW AND ITS IMPACT ON BUSINESS STRATEGY 82 (Daniel R. Cahoy & Lynda J. Oswald eds., 2013). Portions of
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Circuit's Standard for Inequitable Conduct: out of Step with Supreme Court Precedent
    Duquesne Law Review Volume 57 Number 2 Special Counsel Investigations and Article 10 Legal Ethics 2019 The Federal Circuit's Standard for Inequitable Conduct: Out of Step with Supreme Court Precedent Alexandra Gvozdik Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Alexandra Gvozdik, The Federal Circuit's Standard for Inequitable Conduct: Out of Step with Supreme Court Precedent, 57 Duq. L. Rev. 453 (2019). Available at: https://dsc.duq.edu/dlr/vol57/iss2/10 This Student Article is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Duquesne Law Review by an authorized editor of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. The Federal Circuit's Standard for Inequitable Conduct: Out of Step with Supreme Court Precedent Alexandra Gvozdik* I. IN TRODU CTION .............................................................. 453 II. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT ................................................ 456 A. Inequitable Conduct-Setting the Stage ............ 456 B. Inequitable Conduct and the Federal Circuit's Current Standard................. 459 III. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SUPREME COURT ........................................... 459 A. The Troubled Relationship ............................... 459 B. eBay Inc. is Instructive in Setting Patent Law Tests ............................................... 461 IV. THERASENSE-INEQUITABLE CONDUCT STANDARD: REVISIT, REVISE, OR OVERRULE? ................ ......... .. 463
    [Show full text]
  • Competition and Ip Policy in High-Technology Industries
    COMPETITION AND IP POLICY IN HIGH-TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES APRIL 19, 2016 CORNERSTONE RESEARCH COMPETITION AND IP POLICY IN HIGH-TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRIES This one-day conference will explore the latest developments at the intersections of high technology, law, and economics. Topics include: • New technologies and their implications for competition and regulation • Big data: how it changes the ways that firms compete and its antitrust effects • The impact of the America Invents Act on innovation and competition • The legal and economic challenges of the on-demand economy Wireless Guest Access in the Koret-Taube Conference Center: 1. From your list of available networks, select ID: Stanford Visitor 2. Open a browser and load any URL; you will be redirected to a visitor access page 3. Click the button to acknowledge the terms of use; your browser will then be sent to a confirmation page The visitor network offers limited bandwidth and services are limited to email, web browsing, VPN, and SSH. SIEPR | John A. and Cynthia Fry Gunn Building | Koret-Taube Conference Center 366 Galvez Street | Stanford University | Stanford, CA 94305 PROGRAM AGENDA 8:00–8:45 am BREAKFAST AND REGISTRATION 8:45–9:00 am WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION Gregory L. Rosston, Deputy Director and Senior Fellow, SIEPR; Director, Stanford Public Policy Program Michael D. Topper, Senior Vice President, Cornerstone Research 9:00–9:45 am INTERVIEW A Conversation with Bill Baer, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice Gregory L. Rosston, Deputy Director
    [Show full text]
  • BUSINESSMAN Can't Take It with You the Art of Making and Giving
    ffirs.qxd 2/25/04 9:36 AM Page i Praise for Can’t Take It with You “Lewis Cullman is one of this nation’s major and most generous philanthro- pists. Here he combines a fascinating autobiography of a life in finance with a powerful exposé of how the business of giving works, including some tips for all of us on how to leverage our money to enlarge our largess.” —Walter Cronkite “Lewis Cullman has woven a rich and seamless fabric from the varied strands of his business, philanthropic, and personal life. Every chapter is filled with wonderful insights and amusing anecdotes that illuminate a life that has been very well lived. This book has been written with an honesty and candor that should serve as a model for others.” —David Rockefeller “An extraordinary look at the accomplishments of a pioneer in finance. Cullman has approached his role as a philanthropist with vigor and presents a powerful argument for reform among private foundations.” —George Soros Chairman, Soros Fund Management “I was so enjoyably exhausted after reading the book—I can only imagine liv- ing the life! It seems there is no good cause that Lewis has not supported, no good business opportunity that Lewis has missed, and no fun that Lewis has not had.” —Agnes Gund President Emerita, The Museum of Modern Art “Now I know that venture capitalism and horse trading are almost as much fun as looking for new species in the Amazon. This book is exceptionally well written. The prose is evocative, vibrant, and inspirational.” —Edward O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Litigation: Where We Are, Where We Have Been, and Where We Should Go from Here, 28 Santa Clara High Tech
    Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 28 | Issue 2 Article 2 1-1-2012 The nequitI able Conduct Defense In Patent Litigation: Where We Are, Where We Have Been, and Where We Should Go From Here Brett rI a Johnson Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brett rI a Johnson, The Inequitable Conduct Defense In Patent Litigation: Where We Are, Where We Have Been, and Where We Should Go From Here, 28 Santa Clara High Tech. L.J. 197 (2011). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj/vol28/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOHNSON 3/23/2012 11:26 AM THE INEQUITABLE CONDUCT DEFENSE IN PATENT LITIGATION: WHERE WE ARE, WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, AND WHERE WE SHOULD GO FROM HERE Brett Ira Johnson† Abstract This paper examines the current status of the inequitable conduct defense in patent litigation, the historical evolution of the inequitable conduct defense in patent litigation, and problems and concerns with the administration of the inequitable conduct defense. This paper then reviews patent reform legislation and the various ways in which each would address the issue of inequitable conduct and opines on the desirability of the different proposals. Finally, this paper concludes that the inequitable conduct defense should be eliminated.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads/Birthing%20A%20Market.Pdf/(Last Visited Feb
    INDEX SI.No. CONTENTS Page No. 1. The Scenario of Privacy Law 3 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Venugopal 2. Ground Water Management: The Widening Gap between Law and Policy in India 13 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh 3. Empower Women to Empower the World 20 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam 4. Women rights and dire need for Empowerment 37 - Hon’ble Justice R. Mala 5. Missing Children -Quo Vadis 49 - Hon’ble Justice Vimala Velmurugan 6. Conferred Rights and Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution – A Normative Analysis 54 - Prof. Dr. P. Vanangamudi 7. Unnatural Offences in Natural Perspectives : A Socio - Legal Analysis 65 - Prof. Dr. N. S. Santhosh Kumar 8. Efficacy of Industrial Adjudication in India - A Critical Study 80 - Prof. Dr. M. S. Soundara Pandian 9. Dishonouring the Honour killings : The Role of Judiciary 94 - Prof. Dr. A. David Ambrose 10. Child Sexual Abuse - Are the Laws merely Paper Tigers ? 107 - Prof. Dr. Valsamma Paul 11. Bio Piracy at Source - Check Through Prior Informed Consent 120 - Mrs. Krishnaveni Sivagnanam 12. Legal Research, Jurimetrics and Judicial Behaviour 130 - Dr. Lisa P. Lukose 13. Child Trafficking - A Seminal Discourse from Human Rights: Towards Jus Novum 144 - Prof. Dr. A. Raghunadha Reddy 14. Aged Parents - Legal Protection 152 - Mr. Jose Vikas Yesudasan INDEX SI.No. CONTENTS Page No. 15. Interplay of Technology and Law – Gender Perspective 164 - Dr. Reddivari Revathi 16. Legal and Ethical Issues of Cadaver Organ Transplantation Procurement 176 - Dr. N. Kayalvizhi 17. History of Conflict of Personal Laws in India and its Resolution – An analysis 192 - Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • To the Stockholders of GSV Capital
    6 • 5 • 2016 To the Stockholders of GSV Capital: In 2015, we achieved significant milestones, including realizing $54.2 million of net gains and distribu!ng a $2.76 per share dividend. Addi!onally, we elected to be treated as a regulated investment company (RIC), which provides significant tax advantages for GSV Capital (GSVC) stockholders. Importantly, our Net Asset Value (NAV) reached an all-!me high on September 30, 2015 of $16.17 per share, before our distribu!on on December 31st. We believe the drama!c changes in the growth company ecosystem that catalyzed the opportunity for GSV Capital to be launched in May of 2011 are, if anything, becoming more pronounced. Specifically: • The supply of rapidly growing, small companies with the poten!al for large IPOs is a frac!on of what it has been historically. From 1990 to 2000, there was an average of 406 IPOs in the United States per year. From 2001 to 2015, there has been an average of 111 IPOs.1 • Private companies are staying private much longer. The !me from ini!al Venture Capital investment to mone!za!on has gone from an average of three years in 2000 to approximately ten years today.2 This causes liquidity issues for both early investors and company employees. • By the !me a company chooses to go public, it is typically larger and more mature, with much of the growth — and corresponding rapid value crea!on — behind it. • The “Digital Tracks” that have been laid over the last twenty years, with over 3.1 billion Internet users, 2.6 billion smartphone users, and more than 226 billion apps downloaded in 2015.3 This allows technology entrepreneurs to go from an idea to reaching tens of millions of people at breathtaking speeds, with 1 University of Florida (Professor Jay Ri!er, Cordell Professor of Finance, 2016) 2 Na!onal Venture Capital Associa!on (NVCA) 3 Gartner, Ericsson Statements included herein may cons!tute “forward-looking statements” which relate to future events or our future performance or financial condi!on.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeffrey M. Kuhn* 13 YALE JL & T ECH
    INFORMATION OVERLOAD AT THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE: REFRAMING THE DUTY OF DISCLOSURE IN PATENT LAW AS A SEARCH AND FILTER PROBLEM Jeffrey M. Kuhn 13 YALE J.L. & TECH. 90 ABSTRACT The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) receives more prior art submissions by patent applicants than its patent examiners have the capacity to process. Although applicant prior art submissions are highly likely to contain references material to prosecution, evidence suggests that overburdened examiners often fail to utilize references submitted by applicants in their examination of patent applications. The information overload suffered by patent examiners has deleterious effects on patent quality, since examiners fail to identify and apply the references most relevant to the examination of patent applications. The vision of patent examiners as perfect filters of patentability and of information as always benefiting the public good is both idealistic and unrealistic. Despite their expertise, patent examiners are human and fallible, vulnerable to the effects of information processing overload and the cognitive biases attendant to decision-making by a boundedly rational actor. Failing to address these problems will likely result in frustrated applicants, overburdened patent examiners, and reduced patent quality. This Article proposes to solve both the plague of inequitable conduct allegations in litigation and the administrative burdens of complying with the duty of disclosure by reframing disclosure obligations for the information age. Reframing the duty of disclosure in this fashion would require no modifications to statutory provisions, few alterations to administrative rules and regulations, and only modest changes to existing case law. Thus, the approach suggested in this Article is both legally conservative and administratively feasible.
    [Show full text]