text:
Archive pour la catégorie 'SME Policy'
EU Funding: First steps of the European "Small Business Act"
European funds
Related EU Grant Loans Programme(s):
Grants for actions in relation to access to finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs and for investment in innovation activities.
New financial instrument to facilitate to SMEs the obtention of equity and risk capital necessary to their growth
New financial instrument to facilitate to SMEs the obtention of bank guarantees
On 18 July, the twenty-seven internal market and industry ministers worked on established a 'European Small Business Act' for SMEs
The internal market and industry ministers of the Member States of the European Union and the European Free Trade Area met for debates moderated by the chairman of the Competitiveness Council, meeting in its internal market and industry configuration, Hervé Novelli, French Minister of State for Business, Trades, Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Tourism and Services, and Jean-Pierre Jouyet, Minister of State for European Affairs, in the presence of three members of the European Commission - Günther Verheugen, Charlie McCreevy and Neelie Kroes - and Philippe Maystadt, President of the European Investment Bank.
The discussions focused on the European Small Business Act, i.e. a set of measures designed to create more favourable conditions for the growth and development of European SMEs (for example, with regard to public procurement contracts). Access to funding for SMEs was also discussed in a working lunch with Andrea Benassi, the Secretary General of the UEAPME (the European professional organisation for craft and SMEs). The ministers also voiced their support for the draft statute for a European Private Company proposed by European Commissioner Charlie McCreevy. This single company form would reduce the costs for SMEs adapting to 27 different national types of company law.
The ministers exchanged views on the EU's strategy in a globalised economy, in particular on the Commission's proposals aimed at supporting research and innovation and offering better access to public procurement contracts in third countries. They emphasised the comparative advantage given to the European Union by intellectual property and the need to protect intellectual property rights. The ministers expressed their wish for the European Union and its Member States to intensify their efforts in the fight against counterfeiting and their positive expectations with regard to the proposal of a strategy for industrial property rights in Europe that the Commission adopted on 16 July 2008.
French Presidency of the EU
Publié dans SME Policy | Aucun commentaire »
Eu funding: "Think Small First": A Small Business Act for Europe
Grants within the frame of the DG Enterprise and Industry annual work programme concerning very specific projects
Most jobs in the EU are provided for by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs), companies of 250 employees or less.
They have a crucial importance for the future development, but very often face enormous bureaucratic hurdles and obstacles. European SMEs deserve to be better assisted to fully unlock their potential of long term sustainable growth and of more job creation. To achieve this goal, the European Commission has unveiled today the Small Business Act for Europe (SBA), based on ten guiding principles and proposes policy actions to be undertaken by both the Commission and Member States.
The Commission is proposing a genuine political partnership between the EU and the Member States reflecting the political willingness to recognise the central role of SMEs in the EU economy and to put in place for the first time a comprehensive policy framework for the EU and its Member States. The SBA proposal goes hand in hand with the recently announced plans of the European Investment Bank Group to simplify, modernise and diversify the range of its instruments to support SMEs.
At the heart of the SBA is the conviction that achieving the best possible framework conditions for SMEs depends first and foremost on society's recognition of entrepreneurs, including crafts, micro-enterprises, family owned or social economy enterprises, and making the option of starting one's own business attractive. This means that the rather negative perception of the role of entrepreneurs and risk-taking in the EU must change.
The European Small Business Act sets out 10 principles which should be adopted at the highest political level and concrete measures that will make life easier for small businesses. After consulting with businesses and their representatives, the European Commission has also resolved to propose new legislation in four areas that particularly affect SMEs:
* First, a new General Block Exemption Regulation on state aids will simplify procedures and reduce costs. It will increase the aid intensity for SMEs and make it easier for SMEs to benefit from aid for training, research and development, environmental protection and other types of aid.
* Secondly, a new statute for a European Private Company will allow a "Société privée européenne" (SPE) to be created and operate according to the same uniform principles in all Member States. It has been designed to address the current onerous obligations on SMEs operating across borders, who need to set up subsidiaries in different company forms in every Member State in which they want to do business. In practical terms, the SPE would mean that SMEs can set up their company in the same form, no matter if they do business in their own Member State or in another. Opting for the SPE will save entrepreneurs time and money on legal advice, management and administration
* Thirdly, a new proposal on VAT will offer Member States the option to apply reduced VAT rates for locally supplied services, including labour intensive services, which are mainly provided by small and medium enterprises.
* Lastly, an amendment to the directive on late payments is foreseen in 2009 to help to ensure that SMEs are paid within the 30 day time limit stipulated.
10 principles shall guide the conception and implementation of policies at EU and Member State level, such as granting a second chance for business failures, facilitating access to finance and enabling SMEs to turn environmental challenges into opportunities.
In addition to the standing commitment to cut administrative burden by 25% by 2012, the time needed to start a new company should be no more than one week, the maximum time to obtain business licenses and permits should not surpass one month and one-stop-shops should assist to facilitate start-ups and recruitment procedures.
Where practical, the Commission plans to use concrete dates in a year for the entry into force of regulations/decisions affecting business. Member States are invited to consider similar measures.
The SBA includes an ambitious set of measures to allow SMEs to fully benefit from the Single Market and expand into international markets by orienting more resources to small companies' access to finance, Research & Development and innovation. They will also make it easier for them to participate in the standard-setting process, win public procurement contracts and turn environmental challenges into business opportunities.
Finally, the SBA seeks new ways to stimulate interest in entrepreneurship and cultivate a more entrepreneurial mindset, especially among young people. Young people, who want to start up a business, can now gain experience by spending time in an SME abroad via the just launched "Erasmus for young entrepreneurs" programme. This will help upgrade their skills and contribute to the networking among SMEs in Europe. Similar mobility programmes are also underway for apprentices.
The SBA is fully embedded in the Growth and Jobs strategy. Member States are invited to take advantage of the update of the Lisbon cycle 2008 to reflect the SBA in their National Reform Programmes.
Although 99% of companies in the EU are SMEs (companies with a maximum of 250 employees and a maximal turnover of € 50 million), most legislation and administrative procedures don't distinguish on the basis of company size. As a result, 23 million SMEs often have the same administrative requirements as Europe's 41,000 large companies. During past years SMEs have created 80 % of the new jobs in the EU.
Press Room - European Commission
DG enterprise
Steve Bell on the fate of the EU's Lisbon treaty [via Zemanta]
EU to fund technology for the elderly [via Zemanta]
Mandelson misses Sarkozy event but denies snub [via Zemanta]
Art of influence [via Zemanta]
Bluefin Tuna Fishing Ban Has France Upset [via Zemanta]
US firm may bid for European satnav contract [via Zemanta]
World Brief | Middle East: Iran: European Sanctions Condemned [via Zemanta]
Chancellor Merkel goes fussball crazy [via Zemanta]
eBay calls for end to grey import laws [via Zemanta]
EBay slams European 'digital protectionism' [via Zemanta]
Tags: EBay, Employment, EU, EU funding, EU Grant Loans Programme, European Commission, European union, Food and drink, Government, Higher education, Ireland, John Denham, Meglena Kuneva, Multilateral, Welcomeurope, World news
EU funding: Boosting Small and Medium Enterprises' investment in research
New framework programme for research and technology aiming at better exploiting research capacities in Europe and transforming scientific results into new products, processes and services.
EUREKA-EU research and development support programme for high-tech SMEs, financed by the Article 169 under FP 7 Capacities
European Commission welcomes the Council agreement on the "Eurostars" Programme
On Monday 23rd of June, the Council of Ministers agreed to provide EUR 100 million from the EU's 7th Framework Programme (FP7) budget to Eurostars, a Research and Development (R&D) programme jointly set up by 31 countries to boost research capacities of Small and Medium-Sized companies (SMEs) in Europe. The EUR 100 million from FP7 will leverage at least EUR 300 million in public funding from the participating countries, resulting in a package of EUR 400 million for financing trans-national research partnerships driven research-performing SMEs in Europe.
EU Commissioner for Science and Research, Janez Potočnik said: "Research-performing SMEs are the entrepreneurial stars of Europe. We have to join our efforts to support them in this task. The "Eurostars" programme is an excellent example of how Member States and the Commission can contribute to economic growth by reinforcing cooperation between their respective research programmes. Making it possible for SMEs to collaborate with the best European research teams, Eurostars will help them turn new ideas into successful businesses, and reinforce their competitive edge in knowledge and innovation – the cornerstones of our prosperity."
Research-performing SMEs (i.e. companies capable to perform their own R&D) are crucial to the economic success of Europe in the global knowledge economy. With their flexible organisation, resolutely forward-looking strategies, and strong commitment to R&D, these SMEs are uniquely positioned to compete successfully in the global knowledge economy, seizing market opportunities and generating new jobs.
Eurostars provides a new, flexible and efficient tool specifically tailored to the needs of R&D- intensive SMEs. Based on Article 169 of the Treaty, the Commission has proposed to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament that the European Community participates in Eurostars with up to EUR 100 million from the 7th Framework Programme (FP7) budget. Following the approval of the European Parliament in April, this proposal was adopted by the Council today.
The integration of the national research and development programmes of the participating countries into a joint programme for research-performing SMEs further contributes to the realisation of the European Research Area (ERA). This initiative adds to, and fully complements, existing actions in favour of SMEs in FP7. It also reinforces the cooperation between EUREKA[3] who will be managing the Eurostars programme, and the Community's FP7.
The EUREKA Secretariat issues calls, receives project proposals, organises evaluation by independent experts, manages the Community contribution to the Joint Programme, and monitors progress of projects. The first such call (closed in February 2008) generated over 200 applications, demonstrating the high level of interest of the SME community.
EU latest: to leave or nor to leave; or No More Treaties, please! [via Zemanta]
Bid for UK treaty vote fails [via Zemanta]
Tags: EU, EU Grant Loans Programme, European Commission, European Council, European union, Member States, Royal Assent, Treaty of Lisbon
EU Funding: Europe to be in a pole position for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Race
The future of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in Europe is on its way. The Council adopted today the regulation setting up the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking
This public-private joint technology initiative (JTI) will implement the EU target-oriented research and development to support the broad market introduction of these technologies. Founding members are the European Community and a non-profit association of European industry interests composed of a major share of Europe's fuel cells and hydrogen companies of all sizes from micro to large multinationals. The Commission is expected to fund 470 M€ from the Seventh Framework Programme for a period of six years which will be at least matched by industry contributions. The first calls for proposals are expected to be published after this summer. The official celebration of the launch will be at the JTI's first Stakeholders' General Assembly the 14 and 15 of October this year in Brussels.
The main goal of the JTI is to speed up the development of fuel cells and hydrogen technologies in Europe and enable their commercialisation between 2010 and 2020. The partnership will implement an integrated and efficient programme of basic and applied research and technology development activities, demonstration and support actions focused on the most promising applications. The JTI will ensure coordination of activities at European level in order to maximise synergies with Member States and regional programmes.
Scenario analysis, undertaken in the EU-funded project "HyWAYS" indicates that hydrogen, if introduced with suitable policy measures, could reduce the total oil consumption by the road transport sector by 40% between now and 2050. Furthermore, by 2050, CO2 savings from road transport of up to 50% compared to peak levels are possible. Comparing overall spending for hydrogen production, supply and vehicles with the savings to be gained from replacing conventional fuel and conventional vehicles over time, the break-even point could be most likely reached between 2025 and 2035. Nevertheless European Industry needs additional stimulation to invest in the technology of hydrogen and fuel cells.
The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen JTI is the culmination of a 6-year effort involving the main stakeholders in the sector. It started in October 2002 with the establishment of the High Level Group for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies. They developed a common and collective "vision" on the contribution that these technologies could make to the realisation of sustainable energy systems in the future. The industry-led European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform launched in June 2003 followed this path and developed the main strategic documents for Europe and assisted the Commission in the preparation of the JTI.
The legal entity, the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, will be led by a Governing Board. Daily management and operations will be the responsibility of an Executive Director supported by the Programme Office with its seat in Brussels. A Scientific Committee composed of high level personalities will advise the Governing Board. The Member States will closely follow the activities via the States Representatives Group. The Stakeholders' General Assembly will be held on an annual basis and be open to all public and private stakeholders to stimulate a dynamic debate and information exchange on ongoing and future activities.
Week of food crisis talks begins [via Zemanta]
New EU states want CO2 revision [via Zemanta]
ICT to the rescue of Europe's carbon footprint [via Zemanta]
Canada-European Union air transport agreement within reach [via Zemanta]
Debate on the digital future of Europe [via Zemanta]
Irate Europeans Protest the Soaring Price of Gasoline [via Zemanta]
Tags: Energy, EU, EU funding, Europe, European Commission, European Community, European union, Fuel Cells, Seventh Framework Programme
Publié dans Energy, SME Policy, Transport | Aucun commentaire »
Good headway being made on entrepreneurship key competence
Assistance to the Candidate countries to support their progressive compliance with EU rules and policies, including the acquis communautaire if necessary, in preparation for their accession
The ETF has just completed an interim assessment of the EU's pre-accession countries' performance on the human resource dimensions of the European Charter for Small Enterprise. Three countries in particular stand out for their efforts in promoting entrepreneurship as a key competence
Firstly, Montenegro has elaborated a national entrepreneurial learning strategy which is expected to go for Government approval in late spring 2008. The strategy covers all parts of the education system and is intended to provide a comprehensive framework for lifelong entrepreneurial learning development with a particular emphasis given to key competence development. While the strategy awaits adoption, however, the education authorities have already moved on introducing the key competence within some 38% of secondary schools with where teachers have been trained and new pedagogic-didactic materials introduced. Lola Radulović of the SME authority underlines the wider value of the entrepreneurship key competence, 'employers need enterprising workers, people who are spot opportunities and who are not frightened of taking an initiative', she says.
Serbia is also forging ahead with key competence development but specifically in the vocational training areas e.g. agriculture, mechanical engineering and health care with additional occupational areas to be included in 2008 (e.g. electrical engineering, tourism). These developments follow the adoption of the national vocational training strategy adopted in late 2006 and demonstrate a commitment by the Belgrade authorities to see through the reforms outlined in the strategy.
For its part, Kosovo has elaborated an entrepreneurial learning strategy which covers all parts of the education system, where the entrepreneurship key competence is a primary pillar to envisaged reforms. Kosovo has additionally defined a series of standards for entrepreneurial learning to ensure appropriateness of the teaching and learning processes.
Meanwhile, two neighbouring countries have taken important steps to address the key competence policy concerns. Croatia is revisiting its national curriculum strategy with a view to incorporating the key competence provisions within pre-school, primary and secondary education. And fYR of Macedonia has signalled intentions to move forward strategically on key competence developments with a specific request for support from the European Union through its IPA Programme. This will build upon harder entrepreneurship knowledge and skills promotion which is now mandatory for all secondary level schooling.
Reflecting on the key competence developments of the four countries, Anthony Gribben points to good policy motivation by the countries to accommodate the education guidelines within the SME Policy Index.
The ETF works with the European Commission (Directorate General for Enterprise & Industry), OECD and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is supporting the EU pre-accession region in meeting the policy requirements of the European Charter for Small Enterprise.
Education and Training Agency (ETF)
Hübner welcomes Lombardy's flair for innovation [via Zemanta]
EU Helps Machine Translation With One Million Sentences [via Zemanta]
Tags: Acquis communautaire, EU Grant Loans Programme, Europe, European Commission, European union, funding, Government, Multilateral, Policies and Programs, United Kingdom, Welcomeurope
Publié dans Co-op & Development, SME Policy | Aucun commentaire »
Combating cancer on plenary agenda Wednesday
Grants awarded via the programme of Community action of public health
Grants for promotion of security in the field of Public health
How to extend best practice across Europe for cancer screening and treatment will be discussed on Wednesday 9 April
Fatal cancers claim a million people in Europe a year and there are wide disparities in screening and treatment. The main dangers are lung, bowel and breast cancers. Meeting in Brussels this week for a 2-day plenary session, MEPs will debate the issues with probable new EU Health Commissioner Androula Vassiliou. A 50% increase in screening is one issue likely to be debated.
Disparities in cancer treatment and screening across Europe are most marked in the five year survival rate across Europe. In particular death rates in the 10 mainly central and eastern countries that joined the Union in 2004 are higher than in Western Europe.
The figures for the number of cancer sufferers show this is a Europe-wide affliction. An estimated one third of all Europeans will be affected by cancer and this number is likely to increase as the population ages. Around 8% of all cancers are caused by exposure to carcinogens at work and 25% of all cancer deaths in the EU can be attributed to smoking
The oral question to put to Ms Vassiliou comes in the wake of a January resolution of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee on "Combating cancer in the enlarged EU". The current Slovene Presidency of the European Union has also made prevention of cancer the centrepiece of its term of office.
Treating preventable cancers
The draft parliamentary resolution calls for an increase in the proportion of the population taking part in cancer screening measures by at least 50% in each of the EU states by 2018. It also wants steps to reduce exposure to carcinogens at work. Another step advocated is an EU Cancer Task Force. You can watch all the debates live online from Brussels on Wednesday 9 April from 1500 CET.
Tags: Europe, European funding, funding, FUnds, research, Welcomeurope
Publié dans Health, SME Policy | Aucun commentaire »
Vous vous trouvez dans les archives de la catégorie SME Policy.


Altech Controls Corp. v. E.I.L. Instruments, Inc.
Altech Controls Corp.v.E.I.L. Instruments, Inc.
David S. Wise, Sulzer Medica USA Inc., Houston, TX, Ned L. Conley, Houston, TX, Randy J. McClanahan, McClanahan Associates, Houston, TX, Neal Elton Dry, Dry Tassin, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs.
Albert Berton Deaver, Jr., Arnold White Durkee, Houston, TX, Michael O. Sutton, Sidley Austin, Dallas, TX, John R. Schiffhauer, Fish Richardson, Menlo Park, CA, Albert Berton Deaver, Jr., Arnold White Durkee, Houston, TX, Michael O. Sutton, Sidley Austin, Dallas, TX, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court in the above referenced action, alleging patent infringement of three patents, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 50, is, inter alia, Defendant E.I.L. Instruments, Inc.'s ("E.I.L.'s" or "Defendant's,") motion for judgment as a matter of law that `776 patent Claim 24 is invalid for having been offered for sale more than one year prior to the filing date of the `776 application (#448).
United States Patent No. 4,612,776 ("the `776 patent"), issued on September 23, 1986. United States Patent No. 4,628,700 ("the `700 patent"). issued on December 16, 1986. and United States Patent No. 5,067,326 ("the `326 patent"), issued on November 26, 1991.
There have been numerous dispositive rulings in the course of the litigation. On June 5, 1997, after a Markman hearing, this Court construed the scope of the patent claims and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and granted summary judgment in favor of E.I.L. on literal infringement (#324). On December 3, 1997 the Court granted summary judgment also in favor of E.I.L. in concluding that the prosecution history estops Plaintiffs' claims of infringement of the asserted claims of the `776 patent by E.I.L.'s RC-1000 and RC-2000 under the doctrine of equivalency (#354). The remaining portion of this case, dealing with infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the validity of the `700 and `776 patents, and literal infringement of the `700 patent by E.I.L.'s RC-48, was tried to a jury from December 9-22, 1997. The jury found in favor of Plaintiffs Altech Controls Corporation ("Altech") and Richard H. Alsenz ("Alsenz") on all issues (#408). Subsequently, in response to Plaintiffs' motion for judgment as a matter of law that Defendant is not entitled to a defense of laches relating to the `776, `700, and `326 patents and motion for judgment as a matter of law that Defendant is not entitled to a defense of equitable estoppel relating to the `776 and `700 patents, the Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of E.I.L. and its entitlement to prevail on both defenses of laches and equitable estoppel and denied both of Plaintiffs' motions for judgment as a matter of law (#444). In light of this background, the Court addresses the standard of review for the pending motion.
Specifically the Court concluded that because claims 1, 2, 3, 7, and 24 of the `776 patent are limited to the first-on/first-off ("FIFO") strategy, E.I.L.'s controller devices RC-1000 and RC-2000 do not literally infringe the asserted claims. Literal infringement of a patent requires that each feature of the patent claim is found in the accused device. Texas Instruments, Inc. v, Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1228, 117 S.Ct. 1818, 137 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997). In contrast, the other method of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents can be found only if the accused device contains elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention. Id. at 1566.
Specifically the jury found that the RC-48 controller literally and under the doctrine of equivalents infringed Claims 9, 10, and 14 of the `700 patent and that E.I.L. had actual knowledge of the `326 patent before December 20, 1993. With respect to E.I.L.'s defenses, the jury further found that E.I.L. did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the subject matter of claim 24 of the `776 patent was operable before July 31, 1978, that it was embodied in a controller offered for sale before July 31, 1978, and/or that an offer for sale before July 31, 1978 of a controller embodying the subject matter of claim 24 of the `776 patent was primarily for profit rather than for experimental purposes. In addition, the jury found that E.I.L. did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that claim 24, as a whole, of the `776 patent, and claims 9, 10, and 11, each as a whole, of the `700 patent, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. The instant motion, in essence, asks the Court to overturn that jury's verdict and find that the Claim 24 of the `776 patent is invalid because there is not substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the invention of Claim 24 was not offered for sale before July 31, 1978 for profit and because E.I.L. has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the invention was on sale primarily for profit more than a year before Richard Alsenz applied for patent `776.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a)(1), a district court may grant a judgment as a matter of law ("JMOL"), formerly known as a directed verdict, if after a party has been fully heard by the jury on an issue, "there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to have found for that party with respect to that issue." See Thomson, S.A. v. Quixote Corp., 166 F.3d 1172, 1174 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Conkling v. Turner, 18 F.3d 1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994). Upon a motion for JMOL, a district court must review a jury's resolution of factual issues to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support them. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 975-76 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ( en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). Only if the movant shows that when the correct legal standard is applied, there is not substantial evidence to support the finding in favor of the nonmovant, should the jury's factual findings be overruled. Id. "Substantial evidence is `such relevant evidence from the record taken as a whole as might be accepted by a reasonable mind as adequate to support the finding under review.'" Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (quoting Perkin-Elmer Co. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 893 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857, 105 S.Ct. 187, 83 L.Ed.2d 120 (1984)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1228, 117 S.Ct. 1818, 137 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1997). In reviewing factual issues for substantial evidence, the court must inquire whether a reasonable jury, in light of the record before it viewed as a whole, could have arrived at the decision reached by the actual jury. Dawn Equipment v. Kentucky Farms, Inc., 140 L.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court must review the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant and make all reasonable inferences in support of the verdict for Plaintiffs. Allied Colloids, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co., 64 F.3d 1570, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It must not weigh the evidence or consider the credibility of the witnesses, which are within the province of the jury. Id.
A patent is presumed valid and the party challenging its validity must overcome the presumption by proving by clear and convincing evidence that a patent is invalid. 35 U.S.C. § 282; Texas Instruments, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 1993), dism'd, 1994 WL 745517 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Under the relevant portion of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . . the invention was . . . on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States . . . ." The date one year prior to the patent application date is known as the "critical date." A sale or offer of sale prior to the critical date triggers the on-sale bar. Under Section 102(b), an inventor is not entitled to a patent on an invention that has been on sale more that one year before the inventor filed his patent application. There is no dispute that the critical date for the `776 patent was July 31, 1978, since the application was filed on July 31, 1979, and therefore a sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention, a pressure controller used to control compressors in refrigeration systems, prior to that date may give rise to an on-sale bar and render claim 24 invalid.
The central meaning of the word "invention" in the statute is "the inventor's conception rather than a physical embodiment of that idea." Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 119 S.Ct. 304, 306, 142 L.Ed.2d 261 (1998). Because the statutory language does not require that the idea be reduced to practice before it can be patented, it is well established that an invention may be patented before it is reduced to practice where it is described with sufficient clarity and precision to enable one of ordinary skill in the field to understand the process and construct the apparatus. Id. at 309. Nevertheless, the "invention" requires that the concept be complete, not merely "substantially" complete. Id. at 311. While reduction to practice is usually the best evidence that an invention is complete, it is not essential in all cases. Id.
"A process is reduced to practice when it is successfully performed. A machine is reduced to practice when it is assembled, adjusted and used." Pfaff, 119 S.Ct. at 307 n. 2, quoting Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovon Chemical Corp., 276 U.S. 358, 383, 48 S.Ct. 380, 72 L.Ed. 610 (1928).
In Pfaff, 119 S.Ct. at 308, the Supreme Court indicated that it granted certiorari because some courts have required that an invention be substantially complete at the time of the sale for the one-year sale bar period to run, while others required that the invention have been reduced to practice. In rejecting both approaches, the Supreme Court notes that §§ 101 and 102(b) do not mention "substantial completion" or reduction to practice as a requirement for an on-sale bar's grace period for a patent application to begin to run. The Supreme Court further observed that a "substantially complete" standard is not definite enough for an inventor to determine when a patent application must be filed. Id. at 311.
the on-sale bar applies when two conditions are satisfied before the critical date. First, the product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale. An inventor can both understand and control the timing of the first commercial marketing of his invention. The experimental use doctrine, for example, has not generated concerns about indefiniteness, and we perceive no reason why unmanageable uncertainty should attend a rule that measures the application of the on-sale bar of § 102(b) against the date when an invention that is ready for patenting is first marketed commercially. . . .
Second the invention must be ready for patenting. That condition may be satisfied in at least two ways: by proof of reduction to practice before the critical date; or by proof that prior to the critical date the inventor had prepared drawings or other descriptions of the invention that were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.
See also Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Because of the need for a definite standard for determining with reasonable certainty by what date a patent application must be filed, the Supreme Court rejected as "unnecessarily vague" the multifactor "totality of the circumstances" test to determine whether the one-year period should be triggered. Pfaff, 119 S.Ct. at 311 n. 11; Weatherchem, 163 F.3d at 1333. The Federal Circuit therefore follows the Pfaff two-part test without balancing the various policies that were involved in its past application of the totality of the circumstances test. Weatherchem, 163 F.3d at 1333.; Brasseler U.S.A. I, L.P. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 182 F.3d 888, 890 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
An inventor can show that an invention was not "on sale" prior to the critical date by demonstrating that the primary purpose for an offer for sale was experimental, and not commercial. "The experimental use doctrine operates in the inventor's favor to allow the inventor to refine his invention or to assess its value relative to the time and expense of prosecuting a patent application." In re Hamilton, 882 F.2d 1576, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1989). To lift the one-year statutory bar, the inventor must show that he kept control over his invention while he continued testing it. Id. at 1580. With regard to both the public use doctrine and the on sale bar, "The invention may be `put up and used in the premises of another,' and the use may even `inure to the benefit of the owner of the establishment, but the invention must be used under the surveillance'" of the inventor, for the purposes of enabling him to "test the machine," to "ascertain whether it will answer the purpose intended," and to "make such alterations and improvements as experience demonstrates to be necessary.'" Id. at 1581.
Plaintiffs incorrectly argue earlier law that the applicability of the on-sale bar is determined by the underlying fact issues and the totality of the circumstances in view of the policies underlying § 102(b). Opposition (#`456) at 5.
As instances of the use of the earlier totality of-the-circumstances test, the Federal Circuit cited Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Eng'g, Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 656 (Fed. Cir. 1987), [ cent. denied, 484 U.S. 1025, 108 S.Ct. 748, 98 L.Ed.2d 761 (1988)], and King Instrument Corp. v. Otari Corp., 767 F.2d 853, 860 (Fed. Cir. 1985)[, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1016, 106 S.Ct. 1197, 89 L.Ed.2d 312 1986).] Weatherchem, 163 F.3d at 1333. The following policy considerations underlying § 201(b) were considered alone with the surrounding circumstances: policy against removing inventions from the public domain which the public believes were freely available because of prolonged sales at activity policy favoring prompt and widespread disclosure of new inventions to the public policy forcing the inventor to choose between seeking patent protection promptly following sales activity or risking competition from competitors without patent protection; and policy giving an inventor a reasonable amount of time following sales activity to decide whether a patent would be a worthwhile pursuit.
This Court must first determine whether in its normal use the "invention" offered for sale is within the scope of the patent claim, i.e., here whether it satisfies each limitation in Claim 24 and is thus an embodiment of the claimed invention. Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1383, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that the district erred in failing to determine whether an embodiment of the claimed invention was offered for sale). For an invention to be "on sale" within the meaning of § 102(b), there must be a definite sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention prior to the critical date. Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 124 F.3d 1429, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1997), aff'd, 525 U.S. 55, 119 S.Ct. 304, 142 L.Ed.2d 261 (1998). While the determination of whether a product was "on sale" in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is a ultimately a question of law, the issue involves underlying questions of fact. Id. at 1423.
There is no requirement that the offer identify the limitations of the claim or that the hover have recognized the significance of the claims or that the apparatus possessed the claimed characteristics at the time. Scaltech, 178 F.3d at 1383-84.
Under the first prong of the Pfaff test. this Court examines the evidence as a whole to determine whether substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that there was no actual sale or offer of sale prior to July 31, 1978. For comparison, in Weatherchem, the first appeal to the Federal Circuit following the Supreme Court's clarification of the on-sale bar in Pfaff, the Federal Circuit found evidence of at least three commercial transactions in signed purchase orders prior to the critical date in which a specified number of the subsequently patented caps were ordered with a price noted, constituting at least an offer of sale. 163 F.3d at 1333. See Pfaff, 119 S.Ct. at 306 (record evidence of a signed purchase agreement prior to the critical date establishes an offer for sale sufficient to invoke the on-sale bar).
Second, after the Court has determined that the invention offered for sale is within the scope of the patent claim, the Court must examine whether E.I.L. has shown that substantial evidence does not support the jury's finding that the invention was not ready for patenting at the time of the sale. In Weatherchem, the Federal Circuit examined whether the invention was sufficiently developed by the inventor to be ready for patenting. The Court focused on the inventor's testimony that he had made an early drawing of his invention before the offer for sale showing the invention with all the structural limitations set forth in the patent claim, "`sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention.'" Weatherchem, 163 F.3d at 1333, quoting Pfaff, 119 S.Ct. at 307. The Federal Circuit furthermore noted that Weatherchem produced several samples after the drawing and wrote the inventor a letter outlining changes to correct problems. The inventor testified that he would be able to have "all refinement work completed," while the purchaser characterized the modifications as "fine tuning." Id. at 1334. Moreover, the purchaser ordered a commercial quantity of the invention (275,000) before the critical date, reflecting its confidence that the invention was operative. Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that the invention was ready for patenting at the time of the early drawing. Id.
Where the premature sale of the product embodying the patented invention is primarily for bona fide experimental purposes to perfect the invention, rather than for commercial exploitation, the inventor may escape the statutory on-sale bar of § 102(b). Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc., 984 F.2d 1182, 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In Paragon, the record established that before the critical date, the plaintiff published prices lists and sales letters offering for sale the subsequently patented orthotic. The plaintiff on appeal challenged the district court's determination that the sales were not for experimental purposes. The plaintiff had relied on an affidavit from the inventor averring that he had considered the sales to be for experimentation, not for profit, so that the inventor could try to determine if the heel of the orthotic was sufficiently fused to the shell so as to be "unitary," as required by the claims. The inventor further stated that the sales were promoted to small volume or new customers in order to minimize negative effects if the devices were not satisfactory and, according to industry custom, to obtain feedback before engaging in large scale commercialization. Id. at 1186.
The Federal Circuit concluded that "the limited extent of the sales does not negate the bar. Even a single sale outside the grace period may be sufficient to invoke section 102(b)." Paragon, 984 F.2d at 1188. Looking at all the surrounding circumstances to determine whether there was a sale or an offer for sale, the appellate court determined that the sales were primarily for a commercial purpose and discounted the inventor's affidavit of his experimentation intent as "no more than a conclusory legal opinion which rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of activities which are legally permissible outside the grace period." Id. The Federal Circuit noted that it had previously held that "the expression by an inventor of his subjective intent to experiment, particularly after the institution of litigation, is generally of minimal value." Id. at 1186.
The Federal Circuit looked as such facts as Paragon's informing its doctors and their patients that the orthotics were fully tested devices, the inventors's failure to retain control over the devices after sale and failure to keep records, the failure to obtain confidentiality agreements and the acceptance of payment. The court also pointed out that it had previously held "that the assertion of experimental sales, at minimum, requires that customers must be aware of the experimentation." 984 F.2d at 1186-87, citing LaBounty Mfg., Inc. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 958 F.2d 1066, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dybel, 524 F.2d 1393, 1401 (Cust. Pat.App. 1975).
There is no dispute that the critical date for the `776 patent was July 31, 1978, and therefore a sale or offer for sale of the claimed invention prior to that date may give rise to an on-sale bar and render the patent invalid. In its motion for judgment as a matter of law on the on-sale bar, E.I.L. argues that claim 24 of the `776 patent is invalid because it was offered for sale more than one year prior to the filing date of the `776 application and that no reasonable jury should have concluded that the subject matter of claim 24 was not "on sale" before July 21, 1978. It further points to three primary factors for the Court to consider in determining whether the on-sale bar applies here: (1) the invention must be embodied in the offer for sale; (2) the device that was offered for sale had to have been functional at the time of the offer; and (3) the device must have been offered for sale for profit and not for experimentation. J.A. LaPorte v. Norfolk Dredging Co., 787 F.2d 1577, 1580 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 884, 107 S.Ct. 274, 93 L.Ed.2d 250 (1986).
E.I.L. notes that the Court previously denied a similar motion and gave the issue to the jury, but explicitly stated that the motion would be reconsidered after the jury's decision if "reurged" by either party. TT, Vol. 8A at 1851.
E.I.L. first points to evidence, i.e., the testimony of Don Bendikson, an Altech distributor on the West Coast, and Ken Moskowitz, a free lance salesman for Altech, that the subject matter of Claim 24 was embodied in the controller device that they offered for sale. Bendikson testified that the solid state (electronic) controller he offered for sale included a single set point for a suction pressure, a transducer to sense the suction pressure, time delays for turning compressors on and off, and capability for use in multiple compressor systems that were parallel piped. Trial Transcript ("TT"), Vol. 4 at pp. 746-50. Moskowitz identified the same features in the controller that he offered for sale and testified that it operated in a FIFO operating logic. TT, Vol. 8 at pp. 1748-50, 1758-61.
"SSPC" stands or "Solid State Pressure Control."
With the exception of one detail, that Cuin drove a car rather than a truck.
Cuin testified that Moskowitz took Cuin to install; not sell product. TT, Vol. 5 at 890. Coin testified that he was not a salesman, but an installer and a service person, not involved in sales in any was. TT. Vol. 5 at 870.
"Likewise, neither the fact that the price was not firm nor that the color had not been chosen avoids the section 102(b) bar. Mr. Najarian was given an estimated price range and it is not uncommon for car buyers to change their minds about the desired color."
Moreover in Evans Cooling, the court further found that even if an independent dealership violated internal procedures by offering a `92 Corvette for sale prior to the model announcement date set by General Motors, it is still an offer for sale. Id. at 1451. Thus, by analogy, Bendikson and Moskowitz's testimony regarding their sales activity in June or July would still constitute an offer of sale. In sum, contends E.I.L., no reasonable jury could find that the subject matter of claim 24 of the `776 patent was not offered for sale prior to July 31, 1978.
Furthermore, E.I.L. insists, the evidence demonstrated that the controller offered for sale by Bendikson and Moskowitz was functional and operable for its intended purpose at the time of the offer for sale. Ernest Podraza, Energy Specialist Employee of Weingarten's, testified that before the critical date, the Alsenz controller with FIFO, installed at Weingarten's for comparative testing against others, had operated at Weingarten's for at least three one-week periods for a total of over 500 hours without a malfunction or problem. TT, Vol. 2 at 384-87; DX-59 (Podraza's report); DX-214. Cuin testified that the controller had been successfully tested in Altech facilities on a laboratory bench and was operational before being installed in the Weingarten's store. TT, Vol. 5 at 878-81. E.I.L. furthermore argues that Alsenz's testimony of experimentation is entitled to little or no weight under Paragon, 984 F.2d at 1186 (an inventor's testimony of his subjective intent to experiment is usually of minimal value). Moreover, while the Federal Circuit held that "assertion of experimental sales, at a minimum, requires that customers must be aware of the experimentation," E.I.L. emphasizes that there is no evidence that the offers for sale by Bendikson and Moskowitz included such a notice of experimental activity to potential customers.
Nor, urges E.I.L., is there any evidence that the offers for sale were for experimental purposes. On the contrary, both Bendikson and Moskowitz testified that the offers for sale were for profit. Bendikson, TT, Vol. 4, at pp. 738-41; Moskowitz, TT. Vol. 8 at pp. 1727-28, 1752-53.
Thus, in the light of the evidence and the three factors to be considered on the legal issue of the "on-sale" bar, E.I.L. maintains that no reasonable jury should have found that the subject matter of claim 24 was not "on sale" before the critical date of July 31, 1978.
In opposition, Plaintiffs insist that substantial evidence supports the verdict and it must stand. They maintain that the evidence shows that the new controller was not completed until after the critical date and was not operable at the time of the alleged offer for sale, that there was not a firm, definite offer to sell the invention prior to the critical date, and that substantial evidence was presented from which the jury could determine that any offer for sale was primarily for experimentation, not profit. They assert that "EIL relied on the shaky and uncertain testimony of Mr. Bendikson and Mr. Moskowitz to establish an alleged date of sale" and claim that the two men testified or made clear on several occasions that they were unsure of dates (TT, Vol. 4, at pp. 751-52, 807-08, Vol. 8 at 1750) and stated that their testimony was "likely" or "probable" ( id., Vol. 4 at 739, 757, 764-65, 788, 809-10). They insist E.I.L. is not entitled to any favorable inferences from such testimony and that ambiguous testimony does not satisfy the standard of clear and convincing evidence. They also state that the testimony of Bendikson and Moskowitz "at best, simply showed that preparations were being made to market the invention once the invention was completed." Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Constr., 98 F.3d 1318, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (It is "well recognized" that an inventor's development of new technology may overlap with market development); Allied Colloids, 64 F.3d at 1575 (contacting customers to test a product does not raise a § 102(b) "public use" bar even though a commercial purpose underlies virtually every customer contact); Intel Corp. v. U.S. International Tr. Comm'n, 946 FM 821, 830 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (not a violation of the on-sale bar to make preparations for the sale of the claimed invention). Finally, without citing any specific examples, Plaintiffs insist that the testimony of EIL witnesses contradicted that of Podraza, Cuin and Alsenz and the documents.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs are attempting to cloud the testimony on this issue. A substantial number of years had passed since all these activities occurred. Although Bendikson could not identify a specific date for a sales call in April-July 1978, when asked "if there is any doubt in your mind . . . that you offered the Altech controller that had all these features we've listed here today, that you offered that controller for sale prior to — Let's look at this letter — prior to June 8th, 1978 date of the letter you wrote to Mr. Alsenz about the Lucky Store," Bendikson responded, "I have no doubt that I was promoting that controller during that period." TT, Vol. 4. at 752.
This testimony relates to his first installation and first sale, not to an offer for sale.
Again the Court notes that Moskowitz testified that he could not "put his finger on" the exact date that he was selling a product with the features disclosed in Claim 24, but that "it would be in June/July 1978" as reflected in his pilot's log and his July 31, 1978 letter to Don Bendikson with the new pricing. Vol. 8 at 1750.
Plaintiffs are selecting narrow excerpts and ignoring the full context of the statements. In this instance, when asked whether the phone call or meeting with Mike Mafi was his first attempt to sell the Altech controller, Bendikson answered, "More than likely, not." He explained, "Because I was moving around pretty rapidly. I went to Alpha Beta and Hughes and Boys, and all the other stores, and was talking to all kinds of people about the control; rather excited. So it wouldn't have just been Lucky. There was other people that were more interested quicker with my sales effort than what Lucky was." He also stated clearly in response to a question. I kept Altech informed always of my sales efforts. Vol. 4 at p. 739.
When asked when he first called on Alpha Beta about selling the controller, Bendikson replied, "It would probably have been back in April, May, June, somewhere in there," but added that there was "no doubt in my mind" that his sales calls were made before July 31, 1978. Vol. 4 at 757-79.
When asked, "Do you recall — when you spoke to Alpha Beta about this controller, do you recall if you spoke about a price with them," Bendikson responded. "More than likely. I talked about price." When Plaintiffs' counsel objected to the answer as nonresponsive and was sustained by the Court, to the same question Bendikson directly answered that he did recall taking about price with Alpha Beta but did not remember what the price was. Vol. 4 at 764-65.
When asked about Bendikson's receipt of the July 31, 1978 letter to Bendikson from Moskowitz, Bendikson agreed that he "probably" did not receive the letter until after that date. Since the letter was used to show Moskowitz's sales efforts prior to the critical date, the fact that Bendikson probably received it after the critical date is not material.
Q. [by Plaintiff's counsel] Between the time — let's say between the time that you first heard a controller would be coming but would have to be tested in May 1978 until the test in the Alpha Beta store in November of 1978, basically, you did not receive a whole lot of information about what was going on? You just waited for the information? True?
A. More than likely, probably phone conversations and that sort of thing. They might not have had literature ready at that time.
While Plaintiff's counsel continued to press the fact that there were no brochures available at the time, that does not negate the testimony that at least one offer of sale was made.
As noted, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have attempt to obfuscate and create ambiguity in the testimony where there was none.
The testimony of Bendikson and Moskowits clearly does not support Plaintiff's characterization of it.
A determination that an invention was on sale within the meaning of the statute requires that "the claimed invention asserted to be on sale was operable, the complete invention claimed was embodied in or obvious in view of the device offered for sale, and the sale or offer was primarily for profit rather than experimental purposes." . . . [E]ven though the technical requirements of a reduction to practice have not been met, a sale or a definite offer to sell a substantially completed invention, with reason to expect that it would work for its intended purpose upon completion, suffices to generate a statutory bar [citations omitted].
"The law does not require that a discoverer or inventor, in order to get a patent for a process, must have succeeded in bringing his art to the highest degree of perfection. It is enough if he describes his method with sufficient clearness and precision to enable those skilled in the matter to understand what the process is, and if he points out some practicable way of putting it into operation."
Nevertheless Plaintiffs contend that from the substantial evidence admitted at trial, a jury could reasonably have concluded that the invention was not operable until after the critical date and that E.I.L. failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it was operable before that date. Specifically they point to the testing at the Weingarten food stores in Houston during the summer of 1978. The preliminary tests of the new Altech controller began the week ending June 20, 1978 and continued past the critical date into August. PX-278 (Ex. J) at A 018899; TT, Vol. 2 at 332-344 (Podraza testimony). Alsenz was not paid for the test units (TT, Vol. 2 at 331, 345-46, Vol. 6 at 1097), charts and reports evaluating the controller were generated (TT, Vol. 2 at 336-44, Vol. 6 at 1093-94, PX-278 (Ex. J)), Alsenz participated in the tests (TT, Vol. 2 at 331-32, 704-05, 1092), and the controller was sealed in black epoxy to prevent anyone from seeing or tampering with the secret controller (TT, Vol. 2 at 327-29, Vol. 4 at 704-05). They maintain that Alsenz used Weingarten's as his laboratory because he did not have equipment of his own that could simulate a supermarket environment. (TT, Vol. 2 at 340, Vol. 5 at 879-81).
Although E.I.L. contends that the invention was operable because it worked during test periods at Weingarten and because some Altech units were tested on the bench without being connected to compressors, and that Alsenz knew before or during the Weingarten testing that his controller would work for its intended purpose, Plaintiffs argue that the record does not support these assertions. Just because a device works part of the time, Plaintiffs insist, does not mean the device is operable or that testing is complete. Seal-Flex, 98 F.3d at 1324 (§ 102(b) bar does not accrue until evaluation period is complete); Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 551 (Fed. Cir. 1990). They emphasize that no witness testified that testing was complete prior to the critical date or that Alsenz knew or should have known that his invention would work by the critical date. Instead, Plaintiffs assert, substantial evidence showed that Alsenz had no technical justification for believing his invention was "operable" until after the testing was complete.
Furthermore, because two other controllers were being tested with the Altech controller, and each controller would operated for a one week period, Plaintiffs emphasize that the Altech controller did not run continuously from June through August. PX-278 (Ex. J) at A 018890-91; TT, Vol. 2 at 335-37. Problems included difficulty in Alsenz's supplying a unit that could be tested and that both Altech and Hussman controllers were connected accidentally to the compressors causing timer malfunctions. Once the mistake was discovered and corrected, the Altech controller was run for three weeks from mid July through August 1 under various test conditions. Podraza prepared an analysis on August 4, 1978, summarizing the testing. Only then was the controller sufficiently tested for its intended environment, Plaintiffs assert. Further testing actually continued at Weingarten through at least mid August.
Maintaining that the length of testing was reasonable, Plaintiffs also argue that Alsenz showed test charts to the jury indicating that the test controller malfunctioned during its initial testing and during subsequent testing in August. TT, Vol. 6 at 1087-91; DX-59 (Ex. R); PX-339 (Ex. K). Two examples are the strip chart marked EP000430 (DX-59 (Ex. R)), reflecting all the compressors improperly changing state together, TT, Vol. 5 at 1088-89; and PX-339 (Ex. K), DX-246 (Ex. V), reflecting that the controller was not selecting compressors in the correct FIFO order because the counters were not operating properly, TT, Vol. 5 at 1090-95, 1098. Only after the critical date, in August 1978, did Alsenz remedy the problem of the controller malfunctioning by turning on and off randomly.
Cuin also testified that the controller did not always work properly during the test and that the controlled was not complete nor ready to be sold by the critical (late. TT, Vol. 5 at 858-59, 860-64. Bendikson testified that he received the first new Altech controller on September 11, 1978. TT, Vol. 4 at 791-92; DX-62 (Ex. S). Moreover, he sent the first unit back because it performed erratically. DX-65 (Ex. T) at E006530; PX-441 (Ex. O); TT. Vol. 4 at 792-98, 801-02.
One document relied on by E.I.L., DX-56 (Ex. P), reflects that the invention was not operable, i.e., not "ready to go," at the time of Bendikson's June 8, 1978 letter allegedly supporting an offer of sale. TT, Vol. 4 at 784-85 (compressor controller not ready to go on June 8, 1978). Bendikson also admitted that the new controller was not demonstrated to be successful as late as August 8, 1978. TT, Vol. 4 at 791, 813 (Altech developing a controller through November/December of that year).
Finally, Plaintiffs distinguish the facts here from those in Pfaff by noting that in Pfaff there were drawings and descriptions of the invention sufficiently specific to enable the practice of the invention, even though it had not yet been reduced to practice.
Observing that courts are wary of uncorroborated inventor testimony that a sale was for experimentation, not for profit, Plaintiffs argue that Alsenz's testimony is relevant and should be considered as evidence at least in determining at what stage the invention worked for its intended purpose. Seal-Flex, 98 F.3d at 1823 (summary judgment not proper where inventor testified that he did not know if invention would work until it was tested in intended environment without failing); Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (jury had the right to find the investor's testimony established that the invention was still in the test phase). They distinguish the facts here from those in Paragon Podiatry, 984 F.2d at 1185-86, by noting that in Paragon Podiatry, the court discounted the inventor's testimony because approximately 300 devices embodying the invention had been sold prior to the critical date, the inventor placed no control over the use of the devices sold, the sales documents failed to indicate that the sales were for testing, and the inventor tried to raise a genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment by averring a subjective intent to experiment. In contrast, argue Plaintiffs, here there was no sale before the critical date, Alsenz received no money from the claimed invention until months later, and Alsenz's testimony is supported by the record. They maintain that the jury reasonably concluded that Altech did not know that the claimed invention would work for its intended purpose until after the critical date, TT, Vol. 5 at 1094-95, 1098, and therefore E.I.L.'s motion for JMOL should be denied.
Plaintiffs argue that making preparations for the sale of a claimed invention does not violate the on-sale bar; an actual sale or offer to sell must be proved. Intel, 946 F.2d at 830. It is not enough that an offer or sale was likely or that such an inference could be made. Id. at 829-30. Neither of the letters relied upon by E.I.L. is an unconditional offer for sale, but only at most preparations for selling once the product development was completed, and therefore the jury reasonably found that E.I.L. did not satisfy its burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of a definite offer for commercial sale. The June 8, 1978 letter from Bendikson to Alsenz merely shows that Mike Mafi was interested in scheduling a meeting once Alsenz had "the compressor controller ready to go." DX-56 (E.P.). Bendikson conceded that he had no documents or letters to show that he was selling the control prior to the critical date. TT, Vol. 4 at 752. He further admitted that the controller was not ready to go on June 8, 1978. TT, Vol. 4 at 784-85. On cross-examination Bendikson responded that all he told his companies until November or December was that Altech was in the process of developing a new controller. TT, Vol. 4, 813-14. He also stated that he did not receive an operational controller until November 1978 and did not make his first sale until December 1978. TT, Vol. 4 at 808-09.
The Court observes that Plaintiffs persistently blur the clear distinctions between a sale and an offer of sale, either of which can trigger the on-sale bar.
As for Moskowitz's July 31, 1978 letter to Bendikson (DX-57), Plaintiffs notes that Moskowitz conceded that it would not have been received by Bendikson until after that critical date (TT, Vol. 4 at 788), and therefore should be disregarded even if it contained an offer for sale. Plaintiffs nevertheless insist the letter does not evidence an offer for sale of Altech's new controller, but merely proposes a new price for the SSPC controller. DX-57 (Ex. Q). A communication between two members of Altech's sales force would not constitute an offer for sale even if the letter had been dated prior to the critical date. Intel, 946 F.2d at 830 (distribution of samples to sales force is not a violation of on-sale bar). They maintain that a reasonable inference is that Altech was trying to decide on a sales price for the controller so that it could begin marketing it once testing was completed and the product was ready to be sold. TT, Vol. 6 at pp. 1096-97 (Alsenz's testimony that prices were discussed in preparation for ultimately selling the units).
The Court notes there is no issue of distribution of samples here.
In sum, Plaintiffs' argue the invention was not reduced to practice, no samples were given to Altech salesmen and distributors, the only controllers available were those personally installed at Weingarten by Alsenz for testing, the evidence at most reflects Altech's making preparations to set up sales meetings, arrive at a price, and market the invention once testing was completed, and E.I.L. could not produce a single customer to testify that it had received a sales offer or purchased a controller from Altech prior to the critical date. Thus the jury verdict was reasonable.
Finally, insist Plaintiffs, E.I.L. failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that any sale or offer before the critical date was done primarily for profit, and not for experimentation. The jury did not find credible the testimony of Bendikson and Moskowitz, on which E.I.L. relied. Bendikson's testimony does not say that he offered the controller for sale, nor indicate whether any alleged offer for sale was for profit or experimentation. TT, Vol. 4 at 740-41. Bendikson sent the first unit he received in September to Alpha Beta, where it was tested and found not to operate properly. TT, Vol. 4 at 791-93. He did not make his first sale of the new controller until December 1978. TT, Vol. 4 at 819-20. Similarly, Moskowitz did not indicate that a sale was made that was primarily for profit, not experimentation. Moskowits also testified that Bendikson made his sale "at some point after" Moskowita's July 31, 1978 letter. TT, Vol. 8 at 1728.
In reply; E.I.L. insists that the "evidence overwhelmingly shows that a reasonable jury could only have concluded that the subject matter of claim 24 of the `776 patent was `on sale' prior to the critical date of July 31, 1978." Reply at 1. Because E.I.L. bears the burden of proof on the legal issue of "on sale," JMOL should be granted in favor of E.I.L. only if it "has established [its] case by evidence that the jury would not be at liberty to disbelieve" and "the only reasonable conclusion is in [E.I.L.'s] favor." Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Inovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Cert. denied, ___ US. ___, 119 S.Ct. 178, 142 L.Ed.2d 145 (1998). There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's conclusion that the `776 invention was not on sale prior to the critical date, insists E.I.L.
Under the two-prong inquiry of Pfaff (see indented quotation on page 7 of this memorandum and order), as agreed by Plaintiffs in their Opposition at 6, the experimental use doctrine applies only to the offer for sales factor, not to the operability/"ready for patenting" criterion. Therefore the doctrine is not relevant to a determination of whether the new controller was operable ("ready for patenting") prior to the critical date. Altech has erroneously relied solely on the experimental use doctrine to argue that there is substantial evidence that the new controller was not operable prior to July 31, 1978, with each of its subheadings of its Opposition pointing to continuing testing of the claimed invention of the `776 patent after the critical date. Specifically each subheading of Plaintiffs' response addresses an aspect relevant to whether a use qualifies as an experimental use; the fourth subheading under the operability factor focuses on Alsens's testimony that he intended the uses of the new controller at Weingarten's to be "experimental." The experimental use doctrine is not relevant to and cannot provide substantial evidence for the determination of whether the new controller was operable prior to the critical date.
This Court agrees. The issue of whether an invention was on sale encompasses the experimental use exception and forms a single issue. "Under long standing judicial interpretation, a product embodying the patented invention, which is sold or offered for sale more than a year before the application's filing date. may escape the statutory bar where such sale was primarily for a bona fide experimental purpose to perfect the invention, rather than for commercial exploitation." Paragon Podiatry, 984 F.2d at 1185 n. 3. The experimental use exception applies only if commercial exploitation is "merely incidental to the primary purpose of experimentation to perfect the invention." Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., Ltd., 731 F.2d 831, 839 (Fed. Cir. 1984). There is no evidence that the offers for sale testified to by Bendikson and Moskowitz were experimental purposes; rather the evidence regarding pricing indicated that profit was the primary motive in marketing the invention to stores like Lucky and Alpha. The patent owner has the burden of presenting evidence of experimental purpose. Id.
In contrast, E.I.L has properly demonstrated that the controller was operable prior to the critical date. As in Nobelpharma, Plaintiffs' own witness, Charles Cuin, has testified that the controller in Weingarten's store #106 was operable and that each of the features of claim 24 of the `776 patent was present in the Altech controller that operated in Weingarten's Store #106 prior to the critical date. Ex. C to E.I.L.'s Reply, TT, Vol. 5 at 885-88. Alsenz's testimony confirmed that the subject matter of Claim 24 was embodied in the device that was being "tested," actually "evaluated," maintains E.I.L., at Weingarten store #106. TT, Vol. 6A, at 1212-13. Furthermore, Bendikson and Moskowitz each testified that the controller he was offering for sale prior to July 31, 1978 included the subject matter of claim 24. TT, Vol. 4 at 746-51, Vol. 8 at 1748-50, 1758-61. Therefore, since the controller being operated at Weingarten's store #106 had all the features of claim 24, E.I.L. contends that it was obviously "ready for patenting" under Pfaff. Thus the testimony of these witnesses, including Altech's Alsenz and Cuin, and the absence of evidence produced by Altech, there is no substantial evidence on which a reasonable jury could have concluded the E.I.L. did not prove that the claimed invention was operable prior to July 31, 1978.
E.I.L. objects to Altech's claim that it asked the jury to infer from the two letters of Bendikson and Moskowitz that an offer of sale was made. One of the letters was used to corroborate each man's testimony that each personally made offers to sell the claimed subject matter prior to the critical (late. Bendikson, Ex. F to Reply, TT at pp. 746-53; Ex. G to Reply, TT at pp. 1748-50, 1758-61. Altech's diversionary excerpted remarks do not change the fact that at least one sufficiently definite offer to sell was made prior to the critical dates, as testified to by both Bendikson and Moskowitz. "[M]erely offering to sell a product by way of an advertisement or invoice may be evidence of a definite offer for sale or a sale of a claimed invention even though no details are disclosed. That the product is in fact the claimed invention may be established by any relevant evidence, such as memoranda, drawings, correspondence, and testimony of witnesses." RCA Corp. v. Data General Corp., 887 F.2d 1056, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). Bendikson and Moskowitz's testimonial evidence that each intended to offer the invention is overwhelming evidence that at least one offer to sell was actually made. Moskowitz's letter of July 31, 1978 fully corroborates the testimony of Bendikson, Cuin, and himself, establishing that a price was available prior to the critical date and therefore at least one definite offer to sell was made before July 31, 1978. TRW Financial Systems, Inc. v. Unisys Corp., 835 F. Supp. 994 (E.D.Mich. 1993) ("Merely quoting a price to a potential customer when the invention is sufficiently developed can render a patent invalid. . . ."), citing Sonoscan, Inc. v. Sonotek, Inc., 936 F.2d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In contrast, urges E.I.L., Altech presents no substantial evidence to deny the compelling testimony of Bendikson and Moskowitz or the corroborating testimony of Cuin. No reasonable jury could have determined that a definite offer to sell the claimed invention was not made.
Nor does substantial evidence support the jury's conclusion that the claimed invention was not offered for sale or sold primarily for profit rather than experimentation. Although Plaintiffs argue that the use of the invention at Weingarten's was for experimental purposes, that if a controller failed, it was being used for experimental purposes, and that a decreasing price on the controller meant that the sales force was preparing for future offers for sale rather than attempting to increase the current salability of the controllers, E.I.L. maintains that these three arguments do not constitute substantial evidence that controverts the fact that the controllers were offered for sale primarily for profit prior to the critical date. Regarding the first, the issue is not whether the controllers at Weingarten's were being offered for profit, but whether the offers by Bendikson and Moskowitz were for profit.
The second argument is specious because continuing problems do not mean necessarily that the use of an invention is experimental or it is not ready for patenting. The problems Plaintiffs assert were not related to the features essential to the claimed subject matter. E.I.L. also maintains that Bendikson installed a sample controller in an Alpha Beta store in the expectation that the store would be satisfied and buy additional controllers. E.I.L. points out that Altech cited testimony by Bendikson indicating that the first unit sold, an "erratic" controller in an Alpha Beta California store, was replaced in November 1978 under warranty rather than under some sort of experimentation or test agreement. TT, Vol. 4 at pp. 800-02. Bendikson, moreover, agreed with Plaintiffs counsel that "after that it worked to their satisfaction and so they began to buy them from you for their other stores." Id. at 800.
Insisting that Alsenz's various assertions, that the offers to sell were for experimental purposes, do not constitute substantial evidence, E.I.L. reiterates the holding of Paragon Podiatry, 984 F.2d at 1186 that "[t]he expression by an inventor of his subjective intent to experiment, particularly after institution of litigation, is generally of minimal value" and that "the assertion of experimental sales, at a minimum, requires that customers be made aware of the experimentation." It emphasizes that Plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that any customers were made aware of any intent to experiment.
A. You start out with a product at a higher price and then lower the price to start moving the product, to indicate that the price is coming down, that there's something to stimulate movement and growth.
Q. The old price, Mr. Moskowitz, how long were you offering the SSPC pressure controller for sale using the old price — or old prices, I guess I should say — if you remember?
A. I don't remember. Looking here at the log would have been sometime in June to July, the later part of July.
Id. at p. 1752. E.I.L. argues that this testimony, cited by Plaintiffs, exposes the inaccuracy of Altech's price decrease argument and simultaneously shows that there were offers to sell in June and July prior to the critical date and that the decrease in price was intended to stimulate sales growth by making the offers to sell more attractive to customers.
This Court finds that E.I.L. has met its burden of proof of demonstrating that there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the jury's finding that there was no offer of sale prior to the critical date. E.I.L. has presented uncontroverted and corroborated evidence that Bendikson and Moskowitz were offering the invention of Claim 24 of the `776 patent for sale for profit. The fact that the two men, along with Plaintiffs own witness, Charles Cuin, corroborated each other's testimony and the written letters evidencing their commercial efforts, undermines Plaintiffs' efforts, aside from the strained mischaracterizations of their testimony as reflected in the Court's footnotes, to argue all three lacked credibility.
After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court concludes that E.I.L.'s JMOL motion should be granted. This Court concurs with E.I.L. that E.I.L. has met its burden of demonstrating with overwhelming evidence in the corroborating testimony of Bendikson, Moskowitz and Cuin that the subject matter disclosed in Claim 24 of the `776 patent was embodied in the controller offered for sale by Bendikson, including features of equalizing wear time, single set point for a suction pressure, a transducer to sense the suction pressure, and time delays for turning on and off compressors, and that the device was to be used in multiple compressor systems that were in "tandem," i.e., parallel piped, prior to the critical date and that Claim 24 is therefore invalid. The Court concludes that no reasonable jury could find that the device offered for sale was not embodied in the subject matter of claim 24.
The Court further determines that in light of Bendikson and Moskowitz's corroborative testimony about offers for sale and price decreases, supported also by that of Cuin, with documentary support in the form of letters, no reasonable jury could find that Bendikson and Moskowitz did not offer the invention for sale prior to the critical date.
Moreover, the Court concludes the testimony of Plaintiffs' witnesses, Podraza and Cuin, demonstrated that the controller was functional and operable for its intended purpose at the time of the offer for sale. No reasonable jury could conclude the opposite.
Finally, there is overwhelming evidence that Moskowitz and Bendikson's offers of the controller for sale were for profit and not for experimentation.
ORDERS that E.I.L.'s motion for JMOL is GRANTED and DECLARES that Claim 24 of the `776 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).


text:
Estrella Galicia 0,0 ist ein Motorradsport-Team aus Spanien, welches von Emilio Alzamora gegründet wurde. Es trat zwischen 2012 und 2020 in der Moto3-Klasse der Motorrad-Weltmeisterschaft an, sowie 2011 und 2012 als Team CatalunyaCaixa Repsol in der Moto2. Weiterhin tritt das Team in der Junior GP Moto3 sowie im European Talent Cup an.

Statistik

Weltmeister
 2012 – , Moto2-Weltmeister auf Suter
 2014 – , Moto3-Weltmeister auf Honda

Team-WM-Ergebnisse (ab 2018)
 2018 – Sechster
 2019 – Zehnter
 2020 – Elfter

Grand-Prix-Siege

Weblinks

 Offizielle Website (englisch)

Motorradsportteam

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Sophia has worked within education and care for many years supporting others and teaching personal and social development, health and wellbeing, art and yoga. Alongside her teaching role she's currently a student counsellor. Graduating in 2004 with a BA in fine art, she also holds qualifications in education, life coaching, body work and dance. Sophia has experience in working with a wide range of people from many walks and stages of life and is passionate about human potential. The daughter of deaf parents, she uses her skills in communication and creativity to engage and empower others to explore and discover new horizons. She lives and works in Exeter, and enjoys growing food and spending time outdoors.


Planning ahead: Are you interested in the income-based scholarship for the 2018-19 school year? Please complete and submit the form below to sign up for the 2018-19 income-based interest list.
Note: A valid 2018-2019 intent will expire if unused by March 2, 2019. A new Intent may be filed for the following year.
The Gardiner/Personal Learning Scholarship Accounts (PLSA) program helps parents individualize the educational plans for their children with certain special needs.
Exciting news! The Gardiner/PLSA program has nearly tripled in size, with a total budget of $53.4 million, and should be able to serve more than 8,000 students this year. Also, the scholarship will now be available to 3- and 4-year-olds, to children with muscular dystrophy, and to children who have any diagnosis on the autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger's.
If you are a NEW family interested in applying for a PLSA for a child who is 3-years old to grade 12 and who has either autism spectrum disorder, including Asperger's, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, Phelan McDermind syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, spina bifida, Williams syndrome, Intellectual Disability (severe cognitive impairment), anaphylaxis, deaf, visually impaired, dual sensory impaired, traumatic brain injury, hospital/homebound, or Students who are in kindergarten, who are deemed "high risk" due to developmental delays, (and who are not older than 5 on Sept. 1), please click the apply now button.
If your child meets the eligibility requirements, you may apply for a scholarship by clicking on "Apply for a McKay Scholarship" located on the left hand side of the screen.
If your child does not meet these requirements but has an IEP or 504 Accommodation Plan and is a dependent child of a member of the United States Armed Forces who transfers to a school in Florida from out of state or from a foreign country pursuant to a parent's permanent change of station orders, the child may be eligible for a McKay Scholarship. Please contact this office at 1-800-447-1636 for additional information.


The first third of the game against Strathfield started with some strong attacking runs from Daniel and Micah and was backed up by courageous tackling from Kit. A runaway length of the field try by Micah and some determined ball running by Lachlan, which also led to a try, was a sign of more things to come. Indeed the second third looked like the Juniors team of last year, where team cohesion was notching up a gear. This started from a great signature offload from Lucas (although still no supper for his tackle efforts) which was picked up and led to a magnificent try from Elijah. Richard has started to employ the use of the palm, looking more like Justin Hodges than anyone else, sidestepping and palming his way toward the try-line. Some try saving tackles from Elijah kept the opposition in check and this continued into the final third where Ryan picked up man of the match for his tackling and all round effort.
Under 8s white are playing as a team. It showed today the great skills and tactics used to defeat the opposition Strathfield Raiders Blacks 7 tries to 4 with Anthony, Daniel and Leonardo all kicking one conversion each.
Anthony showed a side to the team we haven't seen before by side stepping running and playing extremely well scoring 3 tries, Finn whilst not being 100% well and recovering from being sick also scored 2 tries.
Daniel and Damien magnificent play earned them both a try each.
Sebastian and Adam getting involved run ups and tackling well.
The 8s white are contributing their skill which they have learned at training and it has shown.
Keep up the good work Juniors!
In round 4 our Leichhardt Juniors under 9 side went out to St Pat's at Dundas to play the Dundas Shamrocks.
In what was a fantastic match our boys again put on a great display in both attack and defence. It was our defence that was most impressive this week with the boys keeping the Shamrocks scoreless. An effort we are all very proud of.
Our tries this week came through Oscar, Archie and Max, each try displaying some fantastic skill - well done boys.
Our man of the match this week again had to be split between Marc and Connor. Both boys were fantastic while on the field.
The Juniors under 9 orange side is eagerly awaiting round 5.
Dear all, our Juniors went out to battle today against the GF 2012 winners of U10 D1. The Juniors lost 50-0.
The score line was not flattering; however, there were many improvements in the Junior game today. Our Junior Wall held strong against the Cougars, and on many occasions in first half, the cougars had to kick over or thru our Junior Wall late in the tackle count to score. Unfortunately, their kicks were perfect and so were the chasers. The extra yard of speed and fitness counts at this level. Credit to the Junior Wall though, it made them kick to get through. In attack our Juniors performed the best of all season with strong running and backline movements. The Cougars however, were strong in defence across the park in all positions.
In the second half, the toll of being behind on the scoreboard, on a very hot afternoon at Birchgrove took its toll. The Juniors though still battled hard, but it was a tough day.
Men of the Match were equally awarded to Harrison, Dylan C and Rory who were tireless in attack and defence all day. Malachi (bulldozer) was also Man of Match with his trademark strong runs and crusher tackles. Well done. Great credit to them. Special mention to the rest of the team for their efforts in a tough match with the best of U11 team - the premiers. It was great to see - Mark, Jordan, Marcus, Sharbel, Alex, Hwan, Dylan B, Jake, Tristan, Malachi and Remy still running as hard as they could at the opposition and helping each other in tackles. Next week we play Holy Cross. Training this week is FRIDAY Only.
Footnote: I just wanted to add to this report that I watched this game with enthusiasm. No, the score line was not flattering, however the boys never ever gave up. I have never ever witnessed any team in the Balmain competition (and I have watched many) who tackled so hard - I was blown away by the effort. I mentioned to Coach Peter that the tackling was outstanding. This had to be one of the meanest and bestest games they have played ever! It will get better. Congratulations to our "Junior Wall" team. This team will always be close to me so I guess I will always be one sided J.
A beautiful day at Judd Park against Renown at Mortdale. Renown has a big fast team that won the Third Division Grand Final in 2012. The boys started the game in fantastic style with an amazing solo try to Laurence Zarounis in the first 5 minutes, but it was difficult to keep the huge Renown backline in check. The defence was hard pushed toward the back of the 1st half with Renown running in 3 tries. A brilliant solo try from Symy Despinidis of the Leichhardt Juniors kickoff, and a great blind side try by Dylan Wyeth in the second half took the score to 28 - 16 at the full time bell. With a bit more defensive training and a few less errors next game, Renown are well in our sights.


Despite a home loss to UConn, South Carolina was able to maintain its No. 2 overall ranking.
With a combined overall record of 96-3, Connecticut, South Carolina, Notre Dame and Baylor continue to hold the top four seeds, respectively in the latest NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Sport Committee February top-10 ranking.
The remainder of the top 10 is made up of Ohio State at No. 5, followed in order by Texas, Oregon State, Arizona State, Maryland and UCLA. Other teams receiving committee consideration for top-10 ranking were Florida, Florida State, Louisville, Mississippi State and Texas A&M.
The 10 teams announced today are identical to those identified in the first ranking on Feb. 1. Teams making the biggest jump over the last two weeks were Ohio State from No. 6 to No. 5, while Oregon State moved up from No. 8 to No. 7.
UConn, the defending three-time national champion, is currently riding a 61-game winning streak as the No. 1 team in the country with a record of 24-0 overall and 13-0 in the American Athletic Conference. Despite a home loss to UConn last Monday, Feb. 8, South Carolina, was able to maintain its No. 2 overall ranking with a record of 23-1 overall and 11-0 in the Southeastern Conference. Currently ranked third, Notre Dame is now 24-1 overall and 12-0 in the Atlantic Coast Conference, while Baylor, ranked fourth, is currently 25-1 overall and on top of the Big 12 Conference with a 12-1 mark.
The Feb. 15 ranking is the second of three times the potential seeding will be announced during February by the committee, with one final in-season ranking taking place on Feb. 29. The three February announcements will have no bearing on the final bracket that will be revealed on Selection Monday, March 14, at 7 p.m. on ESPN.


Welcome to the home page for Past to Paper! This is an original feature started by yours truly. What is it? Well as you read above this feature aims to zero in on different eras of history, discuss them and declare why they should be represented more in literature.
I am a student of history and have a Bachelor's degrees in Modern History from the University of Western Australia. Bottom line? I love the past! My goal here is to enlighten YOU in things that have happened that you probably didn't know about (or perhaps not much about). Why? Because it's a crying shame that people go through so much of their life oblivious to the wonders of our ancestors.
Some months will be broad, some will be specific. I am to build upon the knowledge that we learn each month together and to make sure that the history is approachable by everyone, no matter how much or little you know about that topic!
Historical Fiction is all well and good, but it's not for everyone. My feature will give you a concise summary of the month's topic and a run down of what genres I would love to see the setting used in and the unique ways that might be done and also list some suggestions of books that do exist on the topic. The eras that I pick will be the lesser known periods in general knowledge – you probably won't see a feature on World War One or Two unless it's a particular niche of the war.
If you ever have further questions on the monthly topic or requests for future ones, PLEASE do get in contact! I promise I won't bite. Either leave a comment, tweet me, send me a message on Instagram or even e-mail me! Check out my About & Contact page for those details.
Let's learn to love history again!


While a debate has been unfolding in York over whether the Building Committee's plans for a new police station should include photovoltaic panels that would offset electricity costs by making use of the sun's rays, another group in town is quietly making headway with an entirely different set of eco-friendly projects.
The Energy Efficiency Steering Committee on Monday presented the York Board of Selectmen with plans for upgrades to five municipal buildings, including Town Hall, York's fire stations, the Grant House and the existing police and Senior Center building.
Whether the bids returned will meet the budget remains to be seen, but this is a great step toward saving taxpayers a bit of cash in the long-term, and the improvements also will help reduce York's carbon footprint as its buildings are buttoned up.
The move also sets a good example for residents at a time when there are still incentives to make energy-efficiency improvements in their own homes with the Property Assessed Clean Energy program, or PACE program. This federal initiative seeks to create private-sector jobs while promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy projects by offering low-interest loans for home energy-efficiency improvements. Improvements done through the program, like those to be carried out in town, don't have to be particularly large or impressive — loan applicants might simply be looking to add insulation, for example, instead of converting their home to solar energy.
We're glad the Energy Efficiency Steering Committee in a letter to selectmen asked to continue its work, calling this initial round of suggested improvements "Phase 1," and we look forward to the next round of recommendations.
Once the first bids are returned the committee will have a better idea of costs and how much money may still be available, Chairman Wayne Boardman said.
So far, the town's Capital Plan includes $100,000 a year for "Alternate Energy Solutions and Energy Conservation" up to 2016.
That sounds like a win for York's residents and we hope the money survives the budget process in what's shaping up to be another tight year.