text:
Tuesday, Jul 3, 2012, 12:08 pm
Occupy, Internet Freedom Groups Join Protests Against 'NAFTA of the Pacific'
By Rebecca Burns
If the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) is signed at the end of this year, it may rewrite the rules of the global economy for the foreseeable future. That's because the TPP, currently being negotiated between the U.S. and eight Pacific rim countries, will likely remain open for other countries to join—as Canada, Mexico and Japan have already expressed interest in doing, even though they will not be permitted input into the agreement. Negotiating further bilateral trade agreements, a process that draws intense public scrutiny, could become altogether unnecessary for Washington. But as negotiators resumed TPP talks in San Diego yesterday, they were met by a coalition of labor, environmental and Occupy groups intent on stopping the mega-deal, glossed by its critics as "NAFTA on steroids."
The Coalition to Stop the TPP, spearheaded by local labor groups and Occupy San Diego, is planning a week of protests and public education events against the agreement. A rally organized by the San Diego-Imperial Central Labor Council on the opening day of the talks yesterday drew about 100 demonstrators, according to the Washington Post, and a series of public panels on free trade, outsourcing and intellectual property regimes will take place throughout the week. A Quebec-inspired "pots and pans march" is planned for July 7, with solidarity demonstrations taking place in New York, Portland and several other cities.
Though TPP negotiations were initiated in 2008 under the Bush administration, talks under the Obama administration have proceeded behind closed doors, which has drawn fire from law professors, members of Congress and demonstrators alike (While, as Lori Wallach of Public Citizen notes, even the World Trade Organization releases draft negotiating texts, in 2010 TPP countries pledged not to go public with these until four years after any deal was signed). A leaked draft of the agreement, posted on the website of the trade advocacy group Citizens' Trade Campaign, shows that the TPP includes not only new investor safeguards that would expand the ability of corporations to challenge domestic regulations and ban "Buy America" policies, but sweeping new provisions on intellectual property. When negotiators last met in Dallas this May, they were interrupted by demonstrators who attempted to give U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk a "Corporate Power Tool" award. The Texas AFL-CIO and local environmental groups also delivered more than 40,000 signatures on a petition demanding that the draft agreement be released to the public.
Arthur Stamoulis, executive director of the Citizens' Trade Campaign, notes that though 600 corporate lobbyists and representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been given access to TPP negotiating drafts, the drafts have still not likewise been made available to members of the Congress or the public. "The administration has done everything it can to keep this under wraps, and we see that as a recipe for a bad deal," he told In These Times. "We're calling for the TPP to come out of the shadows."
But he also acknowledges that beyond the issue of transparency, his and other groups and hoping to harness plummetting public approval of free trade agreements (FTAs) to derail another NAFTA-style deal altogether. In the wake of NAFTA, which has seen the U.S. economy shed 5 million manufacturing jobs, subsequent free trade agreements have been met with opposition from civil society. More than 700,000 Koreans protested during negotiations of the U.S.-Korea trade agreement, the largest FTA since NAFTA, before its passage last fall. TPP negotiations have thus far been the subject of demonstrations in Malaysia, New Zealand and Australia, and the possibility of Japanese entry into the talks sparked mass protests last fall.
While opposition to the TPP in Japan and New Zealand is bolstered by a refusal among large segments of lawmakers to support the deal in its current form, the U.S. public remains far ahead of most of the political class on the issue of FTAs. (Though last week, 133 members of Congress wrote to Kirk to demand greater access to the details of the TPP negotiations). In the U.S., a September 2010 NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that only 18% of Americans believe that free trade agreements created jobs, and a majority agree that free trade agreements hurt the nation overall.
In addition to strong opposition from the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO and other labor-backed groups, environmental, internet freedom and public health groups have also been mobilizing against the TPP.
"This agreement has 26 chapters, and only two of them cover trade per se," explains Stamoulis on why broad opposition to the agreement has been solidifying. "The rest are concerned with creating a radical deregulatory agenda … This is really a corporate power grab by Wall Street, Big Oil and Big Pharma."
One part of the agreement concerns a tougher intellectual property regime for medicines that critics say could could reverse gains in combating the AIDS pandemic and other diseases in poor countries. Though Obama pledged as a candidate to protect access to essential medicines in any bilateral trade agreements negotiated by his administration, leaked drafts of the TPP show that the U.S. is pushing for stricter patent regulations that would likely increase the cost of lifesaving medicines by keeping generic alternatives off the market.
In a statement opposing these provisions of the TPP, the humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says, "Our experience around the world shows that MSF's treatment programs – and our patients' lives – depend on the availability of quality and affordable generic medicines." The U.N. Development Program and UNAIDS have also urged world leaders to abandon provisions of the agreement that could endanger public health.
Meanwhile, though the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) stalled in Congress earlier this year, the chapter concerning intellectual property would put many of its controversial provisions into effect by creating a a global system of IP enforcement that is stricter than current U.S. law. Many of the advocacy groups that fought SOPA have launched "Stop the Trap," a website and petition that asks viewers to oppose the TPP on the grounds that it would infringe on internet privacy and criminalize some internet use.
Rebecca Burns
Rebecca Burns is an award-winning investigative reporter whose work has appeared in The Baffler, the Chicago Reader, The Intercept and other outlets. She is a contributing editor at In These Times. Follow her on Twitter @rejburns.
More by Rebecca Burns
Chicago Teachers Didn't Win Everything, But They've Transformed the City—And the Labor Movement
Chicago's Citywide Strike Just Spread to Charter School Teachers
What's at Stake in Chicago Teachers' Strike: Whether Unions Can Bargain for the Entire Working Class
Amazon Worker: Why We're Bringing the Climate Strike to Jeff Bezos
From Victories to Union Militancy, 5 Reasons for Workers to Celebrate This Labor Day
http://stoptpp.org/2012/06/29/...
Posted by osdnotpp on 2012-07-07 01:52:15
Thanks for the report, but Occupy San Diego also put a week long International Conferencehttp://stoptpp.org/2...
We are being drawn into a race to the economic bottom. Must we compete with third world wages and third world life styles? Will we be able to educate the moronic and pathetically disengaged, political right wing? Is the middle class becoming a proverbial dinosaur?
Many of our southern governors want "right to work" laws instated in their states. They hate unions. What happens when the "right to work", meme becomes global?
Multinational corporations are a lethal combination of two toxic properties. The first is unbridled greed and the second is a disdain for the middle class. Their mantra is "Profit before people"!
The United States is the largest consumer entity in the world. That is a powerful weapon to use in any form of negotiation. I hope that our middle class isn't being sold out by political whores.
Posted by cravin_moorehead on 2012-07-04 23:19:21
Dispatches on social movements in the United States and around the globe, edited by In These Times Assistant Editor Rebecca Burns.
RECENT UPRISING POSTS
In Honduras, Resistance Against Ruling Party Continues Despite Peril
The Truth About Nonviolent Movements
Wikileaks Docs Expose Famed Serbian Activist's Ties to 'Shadow CIA'
Could Teller Organizing Help Halt Bank Abuses?
Hacktivist Jeremy Hammond's Message to the World
Boulder Votes Yes On Clean Energy
15 Under-the-Radar Progressive Wins of Election 2013
Progressive Chicagoans Take Budget Hearings into Their Own Hands—No Emanuel Necessary
Anti-Foreclosure Activists Put BlackRock in a Hard Place
And the World Food Prize Goes to . . . Monsanto?


Not everyone realizes that cultivating love (metta) begins a process that bestows real insight (prajna).
Maybe you think that emotion is so subjective and irrational that it's an unreliable basis for anything. However, metta and compassion (karuna) are ethical responses, and ethical training entails seeing your ego-based motives and responses for what they are. It means valuing others' needs as at least equal to your own.
The Metta Bhavana, which counteracts the mental poison of hatred and represents positive emotion in our system of meditation – is at the root of a family of practices all of which can be a basis for reflection on insight and for the direct seeing of reality: the four Brahma Viharas, 'the dwelling-places of Brahma' or 'divine abodes'. They are also known as the Sublime or Limitless Abodes (aparimana), so called because there is supposedly no limit to their intensity and scope. The four practices are Metta Bhavana, Karuna Bhavana, Mudita Bhavana and Upekkha Bhavana, bhavana meaning cultivation or development.
The essential nature of Metta is the wish for others' happiness independent from your personal interest. This wish is the basic quality from which all four Brahmaviharas unfold. It is made deeper and broader by practising the three other methods: compassion (karuna), which is an active, loving response to others' suffering; sympathetic joy (mudita), which is that response in relation to others' happiness and good fortune (which only too often evokes jealousy or resentment); and equanimity (upekkha), which is a loving and insightful response based on applying pratityasamutpada so as to illuminate how others' joy and sorrow arise from conditioning factors that govern all beings.
Not everyone realizes that cultivating love (metta) begins a process that bestows real insight (prajna). Maybe you think that emotion is so subjective and irrational that it's an unreliable basis for anything. However, metta and compassion (karuna) are ethical responses, and ethical training entails seeing your ego-based motives and responses for what they are. It means valuing others' needs as at least equal to your own.
This leads directly into the existential territory of vipashyana meditation, raising questions such as: who am I, what is the nature of existence, who suffers, who gains and who loses? And metta does it in a way that is embodied, that is not merely a thought or intention. Its basis in bodily experience effectively counters the alienation and abstraction that can sometimes result from purely awareness-based vipashyana methods rooted in anapanasati or satipatthana. Acting with friendliness and kindness towards someone doesn't make them do what you'd like them to, but it definitely helps them. Eventually you come to wonder how valuable your own preferences really are. When self-interest is sacrificed, there's often a greater benefit and a sense of a deed well done that humbles you when you recall how rigidly you usually insist on your wants.
In engaging with these meditations it is helpful to watch out for the 'near enemy', the negative quality you easily assume is the real thing. The 'far enemy' is the simple opposite – hatred in the case of metta, cruelty in the case of karuna – which obviously isn't what you're trying to cultivate. Much more difficult to notice is the 'near enemy' pema, emotional attachment, which people often confuse with metta. Your practice is then coloured by a desire to get something back from the deal, such as recognition, love or friendship – or you make a connection that's soppy and sentimental. It is very likely that there's at least some pema in the mix, so these meditations are partly about refining that, growing out of need-based responses to others and moving towards a free, spontaneous desire to give and help. That is a long-term project, but meditation is a good way to make it happen.
Once you've established a stable focus in the meditation, you can include some reflection on the insubstantiality of the person generating the metta (i.e. you, the self that is lacking in selfhood) together with the equally non-self person who is currently the object of your metta. If you understand this, you'll find that the reflection works well to deepen and sustain the feeling of metta – this is closer to how things actually are, so it makes the engagement more real. Having a metta-filled mind is also just the right approach for vipashyana reflection: its 'immeasurable', unlimited quality works better than the usual critical, measuring attitude and its openness perceives more easily the absence of an inherent, permanent nature in things. It knows that real people are unfathomable and finds it natural to let go of the niggling wish that others should conform to our preferences.


text:
Bellona.org > Latest News > Nuclear issues > Nuclear Russia > Russia's Bilibino nuclear station shutting down reactors to make way for floating nuclear plant
Nuclear issues, Nuclear Russia
Russia's Bilibino nuclear station shutting down reactors to make way for floating nuclear plant
Russia's Bilibin nuclear power plant will to close its No 1 reactor in two year, with its remaining three to follow by 2021, the country's extreme Northeast reportedly to make way for power production from the country's first floating nuclear plant, the nuclear station reported.
Published on May 9, 2016 by Charles Digges
The Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant in the Chukotka Region. (Photo: Wikipedia)
Russia's Bilibino nuclear power plant will to close its No 1 reactor in two year, with its remaining three to follow by 2021, the country's extreme Northeast reportedly to make way for power production from the country's first floating nuclear plant, the nuclear station reported.
The three-year delay in shutting down the final three reacors ironically necessitated getting permits to run them beyond their original 40-year designed lifespan, nuclear.ru said, even though they've long been written off for the scrape heap.
Whatever power shortages result from the reactor shutdown are supposed to be supplemented by the arrival of Russia's first floating plant, the Akademik Lomonosov, which is tentatively scheduled for this year, when it will put into Chukotka's port of Pevek.
Pevek, in Chukotka, the destination of the Akademik Lomonsov. (Photo: Wikipedia)
Many at state nuclear corporation Rosatom, however have said privately the Akademik Lomonosov's arrival date of 2016 is aspirational and caution it will arrive closer to 2019.
Before it does, advanced infrastructure development for the far-flung Northeastern Arctic region will have to be completed to the tune of $78.5 million.
Though Andrei Zolotkov, a nuclear adviser to Bellona, said the cost of the infrastructure upgrades in Chukotka was not a new surprise expense, the floating nuclear power plant project has been controversial and protracted since the beginning due to its ever-growing $750 million budget.
"The hydro-technical and shore equipment for the floating plant was foreseen in the original designs," Zolotkov said. "It's a part of the project which wasn't among the first steps and in various ports the costs would change, so this construction is specific to the area."
Infrastructure builds cause further delays for floating plant
But even if the Akademic Lomonsov is delivered to Pevek this year, tenders for the infrastructure upgrades that will make it a usable power source in the region were only submitted until February, with construction to last until 2019.
The Akademik Lomonosov puts in for further construction at the Baltic Shipyard. (Photo: Baltiisky Zavod).
Whatever deadlines the new floating nuclear power plant's arrival in Chukotka might experience, Nils Bøhmer, Bellona's executive director remained vehemently opposed to the project as a whole, and called for a switch to renewables, which are ready now.
"Neither running Bilibino nuclear plant nor installing the floating nuclear plant is a good idea," said Bøhmer. "Instead of spending millions of rubles on the floating plant, Russia should spend its resources to develop more environmentally friendly power sources, for example combining renewable energy with the storage of energy in batteries."
But Russia has already announced plans to continue building floating nuclear plants – and is expecting a new one by 2030.
Sergei Zavyalov, deputy director of construction for floating nuclear plants at Russia's nuclear utility Rosenergoatom told RIA Novosti last summer that the newer line of floating plants is expected to be smaller than the Akademic Lomonsov, and are already being developed.
The Akademik Lomonsov's arduous history
The Akademik Lomonosov has been plagued since the beginning of construction in 2006 by upwardly spiraling costs – which in May of last year had reached $750 million – and even a change of shipyard.
Its construction initially began at Sevmash in Northwest Russia, but in 2009 was moved to the Baltic Shipyard amid whispers that money was being siphoned off the project to complete Sevmash's defense contracts.
In St. Petersburg, the floating nuclear plant's fate became ensnared in bankruptcy proceedings against the Baltic Shipyard. Russia's United Shipbuilding Corporation bought up the shipyard in May 2011, and the build continued.
Installation of the Akademik Lomonosov's nuclear reactors. Credit: Baltic Shipyard
Unnamed Rosatom sources told the Russian daily Kommersant that the rocky history of trying to get the Akademik Lomonsov on the water is a result of the vessel being "experimental."
Kommersant's sources at Rosatom told the paper to realistically expect the Akademik Lomonosov's plug-in to the grid at Pevek as late as 2021.
Closure plans for the Bilibino plant
The closure of Bilibino's reactors – the only ones in the world working in conditions of permafrost – dovetails with a $155,191 feasibility study announced by Rosatom to power down a number of reactors for decommissioning.
According to the Nuclear.ru news portal, the feasibly study reached cost projections for decommissioning the Novovoronezh plant's No 3 reactor, the Beloyarsk plant's No 1 and 2 reactors, the first two units at the Leningrad nuclear station, and all four reactors at the Bilibino plant, and should account for how the their spent nuclear fuel will be dealt with.
Winter in Bilibino. (Photo: AlGaman/panoramio.com
The Bilibino station operates four graphite moderated EGP-6 type reactors, which are characterized as scaled-down versions of the Chernobyl-type RBMK reactors, and are the only four such reactors in operation in Russia.
Dismantlement of the Bilibino No 1, was initially scheduled to begin in 2014, according to Atominfo.ru portal. But a number of competing plans involving transport of its spent fuel had to be weighed. The winning scheme involved carting away the spent fuel by sea.
The total decommissioning and dismantlement cost for the first reactor is expected to weigh in at 7 to 8 billion rubles, or $120.9 million, less than half of the $325 million the US routinely projects for dismantlement of its own reactors.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Eminem's '8 Mile' to get anniversary Detroit event
Shady Records will host the Nov. 8 screening at Bel Air, scene of the film's Detroit premiere in 2002
Eminem's '8 Mile' to get anniversary Detroit event Shady Records will host the Nov. 8 screening at Bel Air, scene of the film's Detroit premiere in 2002 Check out this story on Freep.com: http://on.freep.com/2ypGBQ1
Brian McCollum, Detroit Free Press Pop Music Critic Published 12:01 p.m. ET Oct. 16, 2017 | Updated 3:41 p.m. ET Oct. 17, 2017
In a scene from "8 Mile," Jimmy (Eminem) stares down his opponent in a freestyle rap battle.(Photo: Bob Marshak, Universal)
The red carpet will roll out again at a theater on 8 Mile Road.
Eminem's Shady Records will celebrate "8 Mile" with a Nov. 8 screening at Detroit's Bel Air Luxury Cinema — 15 years to the day after the film bowed in the U.S.
Bel Air, then the Phoenix Theatre, also hosted the movie's Detroit premiere on Nov. 7, 2002, a chilly night that featured Eminem and director Curtis Hanson.
Fans cheer after Eminem walks into the Phoenix Theatre on 8 Mile Road for the opening of "8 Mile" on Nov. 7, 2002. (Photo: William Archie, Detroit Free Press)
There's no word yet on an Eminem appearance at next month's showing, but he's donating all ticket proceeds to the Verses Project, a literacy endeavor by Detroit's Community Music School and Michigan State University previously supported by the rapper. Money will also be raised that night with special Shady Records concession packages.
The "8 Mile" showing will be at 7 p.m. Nov. 8 at Bel Air, 10100 E. 8 Mile, Detroit. Tickets are $8 and go on sale at noon Wednesday at ShadyRecords.com and the Bel Air website.
Eminem and Shady will also be offering a limited run of "8 Mile"-inspired merchandise, available on the label's site next month.
The semi-autobiographical film, set in 1995 Detroit, stars Eminem as aspiring rapper Jimmy (B-Rabbit) Smith making his way on the local hip-hop scene. The movie earned the best original song Oscar for "Lose Yourself."
An official "8 Mile" afterparty will be held the next night — Nov. 9 — at Saint Andrew's Hall, hosted by Bushman, the longtime WJLB-FM (97.9) personality who appeared in the film as himself. The event will feature rap battles and a performance by Detroit rapper Miz Korona, who also featured in the movie.
Saint Andrew's is upstairs from the Shelter, setting of Eminem's battle performances in "8 Mile." (The scenes were actually filmed at a warehouse on Chene Street.) General admission tickets are $20, and VIP packages including an "8 Mile" gift bag and poster are $50. A portion of afterparty proceeds will also go to the Verses Project.
Read or Share this story: http://on.freep.com/2ypGBQ1
One of metro Detroit's favorite spots for sushi is now double the size
'Shake Shack on acid' opening in Detroit this spring
Steely Dan with Steve Winwood coming to Detroit
Look at Detroit's RoboCop statue now
Detroit's Top 10: Cool things to do this weekend and beyond
Robert Downey Jr. disappoints in 'Dolittle'


text:
What Cannabinoids Are In Weed?
The most well-known cannabinoids are THC and CBD, both found in cannabis.
CBD is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid that has been reported to have various medical benefits. Other cannabinoids found in cannabis include CBG, CBC, and THCA.
What is THC-O?
What Are The Medical Benefits Of Cannabinoids?
Cannabinoids have a variety of medical benefits. CBD has been known to effectively support the treatment of certain conditions; including chronic pain, anxiety, and epilepsy. Cannabinoids may also aid in the treatment of other physical conditions, such as nausea and vomiting, glaucoma, and Crohn's disease.
How Do I Use Cannabinoids?
Cannabinoids can be ingested orally, inhaled, or applied directly to the skin as a "topical oil, gel, or cream. When taking cannabinoids orally, start with a low dose and increase as tolerated. When inhaling cannabinoids, it is usually preferred to use a vaporizer or vape pen instead of smoking cannabis.
The most well-known cannabinoids are THC and CBD, both found in cannabis. THC is for the psychoactive effects of cannabis. Other cannabinoids found in cannabis include CBG, CBC, and THCA.
Cannabinoids have been known to produce various benefits to the body; including pain relief, anti-inflammatory properties, anxiety relief, and seizure reduction. Research has shown that cannabinoids can also support the treatment of multiple conditions, including chronic pain, epilepsy, and cancer.
Can Cannabinoids Be Absorbed Through The Skin
Yes. Transdermal absorption occurs when cannabinoids are applied to the skin and absorbed into the bloodstream. This process is called transdermal absorption. This term can be used to describe the application of topical CBD creams, gels, and oils directly to the skin for physical relief.
Do Cannabinoids Have Side Effects?
Cannabinoids may have side effects, especially when taken in high doses. The most common side effects include dry mouth, red eyes, dizziness, and fatigue. More severe side effects can occur in rare cases, such as paranoia and anxiety.
How Does Delta8 Work?
Delta-eight works by binding to the cannabinoid receptors in our body. These receptors are responsible for various functions, including pain relief, anti-inflammatory effects, anxiety relief, and seizure reduction. Delta-eight has been reported to support the relief of physical conditions such as chronic joint and muscle pain.
Delta 8 Starter Kit
THC-O Carts (Cartridges)
Is Delta8 Safe?
Delta-eight is considered to be generally safe when taken in low to moderate doses. However, like all cannabinoids, it can have side effects when taken in high doses. Side effects include dry mouth, red eyes, dizziness, and fatigue. More severe side effects can occur in rare cases, such as paranoia and anxiety. It is essential to start off with a micro dose and increase intake as tolerated, to avoid a potentially negative experience.
5 Facts About THC-O
If you have any questions about cannabinoids, please ask us in the comments section below.
Back to THC Alternatives


There were plenty of magazines about Movies, TV, and Radio that only came out for a few issues, or were even published as one-shots. In some cases, titles which normally did not use separate covers had occasional pictorial covers for special issues. And anything else that doesn't fit elsewhere: You will find here.


The error output of the Lookup Currency Key transformation redirects any data rows that failed the lookup to the Script transformation operation. To provide more information about the errors that occurred, the Script transformation runs a script that gets each error's description.
In this task, you save all this information about the failed rows to a delimited text file for later processing. To save the failed rows, you add and configure a Flat File connection manager for the text file that contains the error data and a Flat File destination. By setting properties on the Flat File connection manager that the Flat File destination uses, you can specify how the Flat File destination formats and writes the text file. For more information, see Flat File connection manager and Flat File destination.
Select the Data Flow tab.
In the SSIS Toolbox, expand Other Destinations, and drag Flat File Destination onto the data flow design surface. Put the Flat File Destination directly underneath the Get Error Description transformation.
Select the Get Error Description transformation, and then drag the blue arrow onto the new Flat File Destination.
On the Data Flow design surface, select the name Flat File Destination in the new Flat File Destination transformation, and change that name to Failed Rows.
Right-click the Failed Rows transformation, select Edit, and then in the Flat File Destination Editor, select New.
In the Flat File Format dialog box, verify that Delimited is selected, and then select OK.
In the Flat File Connection Manager Editor, in the Connection Manager Name box enter Error Data.
In the Flat File Connection Manager Editor dialog box, select Browse, and locate the folder in which to store the file.
In the Open dialog box, for File name, enter ErrorOutput.txt, and then select Open.
In the Flat File Connection Manager Editor dialog box, verify that Locale is English (United States) and Code page is 1252 (ANSI-Latin I).
In the options pane, select Columns.
In addition to the columns from the source data file, there are three new columns: ErrorCode, ErrorColumn, and ErrorDescription. These columns are the error output of the Lookup Currency Key transformation and the script in the Get Error Description transformation. You can use these columns to troubleshoot the cause of the failed row.
In the Flat File Destination Editor, clear the Overwrite data in the file check box.
Clearing this check box persists the errors over multiple package executions by appending each new run's error output.
In the Flat File Destination Editor, select Mappings to verify that all the columns are correct. Optionally, you can rename the columns in the destination.


text:
2 November 2004 09:14am
By Dana Paxton (As Amended By ISAF News Editor)
Leroy And Briand Tie For Victory
© Event Media
Rolex Osprey Cup
Claire LEROY and Christine BRIAND, both of France, tied for victory in the Rolex Osprey Cup, sailed October 28-31 in St. Petersburg, Fla.
After completing five flights of matches and working against daily conditions of light wind on Tampa Bay, the St. Petersburg Yacht Club race committee determined that the overall standings after five flights would determine the winner. Both Leroy and Briand tied with four wins and one loss, giving them the first-ever shared Rolex Osprey Cup title. Leroy's crew was Dorothée Martin D'AURAY, Julie GERECHT and Ingrid CERRATO. Sailing with Briand was Gwenaele JOULIE-METIVIER, Claire De NOMAZY and Claire PRUVOT.
"It is wonderful to win this event two times in a row," said Leroy (St. Quentin, France), the defending champion. "Thank you to Rolex, Tom FARQUHAR and Patricia SEIDENSPINNER for making this event possible. Thank you to my team and to my sponsors Ideactor, Gul, Sodifac-Roubaix and the French federation. We are very happy with this victory as we worked hard this year to improve.
"Like everybody I prefer when there is just one winner, but when you have the same results, and you can't break the tie, it is fair to have two winners," continued Leroy. "I think that Christine has come back with a very good team. That is very good for the future of match racing, because there are more good sailors competing."
For Briand, the return to match racing in 2003 has been rewarding. "I am very happy to win especially because I have quite a new crew this year with a new tactician and a new trimmer," said Briand, the 1994 ISAF Women's Keelboat World Champion and driver/tactician aboard Team EF Education in the 1997/98 Whitbread Round the World Race. "For us, it is our first win and I hope, not the last."
Both skippers credited the St. Petersburg Yacht Club's race committee and its chair Pat SEIDENSPINNER for their dedication in running quality races despite the frustrating conditions.
"The organizers did not have a lot of luck with the wind, but they did a great job," said Leroy. "Even though the wind averaged three knots, we were able to complete our matches when it was 4-8 knots. The race committee didn't try to finish the event in bad conditions, so I say a big thank you for that."
Four skippers tied for third place with three wins, two losses: Elizabeth KRATZIG (Corpus Christi, Texas/Miami, Fla.), Guilia CONTI (Lake Garda, Italy), Klaartje ZUIDERBAAN (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) and Liz BAYLIS (San Francisco, Calif.).
Rounding out the standings are Sandy HAYES (Scituate, Mass.) and Lisa ROSS (Lunenburg, Nova Scotia) tied for seventh place, with Christelle PHILIPPE (Saint Nazaire, France) in ninth and SPYC junior sailor Rachael SILVERSTEIN (St. Petersburg, Fla.) in tenth.
Skipper, hometown
1. Christine BRIAND, La Rochelle, France"
1. Claire LEROY, St. Quentin, France"
3. Elizabeth KRATZIG, Corpus Christi, Texas/Miami, Fla.
3. Giulia CONTI, Lake Garda, Italy
3. Klaartje ZUIDERBAAN, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
3. Liz BAYLIS, San Francisco, Calif.
7. Sandy HAYES, Scituate, Mass.
7. Lisa ROSS, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia
9. Christelle PHILIPPE, Saint Nazaire, France
10. Rachael SILVERSTEIN, St. Petersburg, Fla.


Out The Box Productions Presents WHERES JULIAN?
Follow Him On His Journey Called Life On His Online Show/Vblog based around everyday life. As Julian show's businesses, friends and experiences through his very own Eyes. And take a look at his Final Episode.
Wheres Julian visits all the local cars shops in Baltimore. This is his final episode and his last testimony to the world. Take this journey with him.
"If Your Friends Jump Off A Cliff, Would You?"
"Every moment of your life is a clue to your destiny, Live how you think not by what you have been told."
"So much to say for this video and at the same time nothing at all, it says a lot for itself. For one to know where they are going in life they must know where they came from.This "Premier Video" goes back to my Hometown as I show my life, family & friends through my eyes!"


This kit contains both a flat tape threader and a sewing bodkin. The sewing bodkin features two different sized eyes. The smaller threading eye is ideal for thread and the larger eye is more used for tapes, elastics, or even yarns.


HOUSTON, TEXAS (October 1, 2017) In a game that saw no players kneeling during the National Anthem, the Houston Texas scored two touchdowns in the first quarter and went on to down the Tennessee Titans by the score of 57-14 at Houston's NRG Stadium on a beautiful Sunday, October 1, 2017 afternoon. The 57 points was a franchise record for the Texans and pushed their season record to 2-2 for the season. The 43-point difference is also the largest margin of victory in a game in team history. The previous high was a 34-point drubbing at Tennessee on October 23, 2011.


text:
Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited
and its known 9 related entities (exclude related entities) |
Uniloc USA – Limited Software Licensing (8,566,960)
Uniloc USA – Software Licensing and Delivery Systems (6,324,578)
Uniloc USA – Unified Communications Systems (7,804,948)
Uniloc USA – Smartphone Messaging Apps (7,535,890)
Uniloc – Motion-Based Device Wakeup (8,872,646)
Uniloc – Mobile Devices Monitoring Human Activity (7,653,508)
Uniloc – Mobile Device Battery Charging (6,661,203)
Uniloc – Mobile Devices Used for Remote Display (6,580,422)
Uniloc – Devices Using Bluetooth 3.0 (7,020,106)
Uniloc – Devices Using Push Notifications (7,969,925)
Uniloc – Devices Supporting Bluetooth Low Energy (6,993,049)
Uniloc USA, Inc. (5,490,216)
Uniloc 2017 LLC (8,484,089)
75Active
110Petitions
About Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited
Litigations for Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited
Patent Information for Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited
Petitions for Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited
Continued Fortress-Uniloc Litigation Prompts Pushback Before the PTAB as Apple Wins Cancellation of Claims from Three Patents
The past few years have seen a steady stream of litigation over patents held by Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, a flow that has intensified since IP investment firm Fortress Investment Group LLC took over Uniloc's assertion efforts in May 2018. Since that acquisition, Fortress has aggressively litigated patents from that portfolio through its subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC, hitting a variety of defendants with an ongoing barrage of new complaints. As Uniloc 2017 continues to file litigation, defendants from those new campaigns as well as existing Uniloc campaigns asserting patents now held by Fortress have fought back by pursuing validity challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Three of the Board's latest decisions were not in the NPE's favor: On June 17, the PTAB invalidated claims from three patents in inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed by frequent Uniloc defendant Apple, which last year accused the NPE of "serially filing meritless patent infringement cases against it". Those PTAB final decisions come as an earlier Uniloc campaign springs back to life, following a Federal Circuit decision that reversed the Alice invalidation of two of the NPE's patents.
Federal Circuit Revives Two Former IBM Patents, Now Owned by Fortress, from Alice Invalidation
The Federal Circuit has breathed new life into a campaign begun by Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited in April 2016—before the Australian NPE began ramping up its litigation activity in 2017, before it acquired the large portfolio of patents from Pendrell Corporation in early 2018, and before it transferred control over its patent assets to Fortress Investment Group LLC in May 2018. Throughout 2016 and 2017, Uniloc accused a wide range of defendants of infringing up to four patents, sourced from IBM, through their software licensing and delivery systems. Multiple decisions in the Eastern District of Texas, however, invalidated all four patents under Alice, stopping the campaign in its tracks. Now, in a May 24, 2019 nonprecedential opinion, the Federal Circuit has reversed the district court as to two of those patents while affirming the invalidity of the other two. The case has been remanded back to Texas for further proceedings in the underlying cases, filed against ADP, Big Fish Games, BitDefender, and Kaspersky Lab, but the decision could revive litigation dropped as to other defendants as well.
Standing Debate Continues as Fortress-Uniloc Deal Casts a Long Shadow over Lawsuits Against Apple
In October 2018, a battle over standing erupted in litigation between Apple and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc). Apple had moved to dismiss four of Uniloc's cases against it after learning of a complex set of agreements between the NPE and Fortress Investment Group LLC, arguing that Uniloc's purported "defaults" under those agreements had deprived Uniloc of standing by shifting sufficient rights in the asserted patents to Fortress. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California denied that motion in January, holding in part that Fortress had shown through its conduct that Uniloc had cured any defaults that had occurred. Apple has now moved for reconsideration of that order, asserting that at least one of Uniloc's defaults could not have been excused under the evidence presented and that the purported "cure" was really an implied waiver, which would be barred under the relevant agreements—under which any waiver by Fortress must be in writing. Uniloc, meanwhile, has asked the court to roll back certain redactions in Apple's motion, arguing that only a narrower set of contractual terms between the NPE and Fortress needed to be withheld.
Standing Battle Escalates in Fortress-Uniloc Cases as Redactions Get Rolled Back, but Key Licensing Terms Remain Sealed
A contentious battle over standing has continued to develop in litigation between Apple and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc). Earlier this month, District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California rejected Apple's argument that Uniloc's purported "defaults" under a complex set of agreements with Fortress Investment Group LLC had deprived Uniloc of standing by shifting sufficient rights in the asserted patents to Fortress. Apple has now sought permission to move for reconsideration, asserting that Judge Alsup erred by adopting an argument not briefed by the parties and by finding that Uniloc had cured any defaults that had existed. Meanwhile, a related dispute over confidentiality has also heated up in the wake of Judge Alsup's mid-January order that Uniloc could not justify the broad withholding of details about its agreements with Fortress. Uniloc has now filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision, seeking a much more limited set of redactions—in the process, revealing new details about the evolving Uniloc-Fortress relationship.
Standing to Sue Flies Right Through Tangled Web of Uniloc-Fortress Agreements
District Judge William Alsup in the Northern District of California has ruled on a motion questioning whether Uniloc Luxembourg S.a.r.l. (f/k/a Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) and Uniloc USA, Inc., subsidiaries of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, had standing to sue at the time that they filed a raft of lawsuits against Apple in their original forum, the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Alsup ruled that the Uniloc plaintiffs did have standing, rejecting Apple's argument that a purported "default" under a set of December 2014 agreements between Uniloc and Fortress Investment Group LLC, as subsequently and repeatedly amended, had shifted sufficient rights to Fortress to destroy Uniloc's standing. Apple had also opposed a motion to add Uniloc 2017 LLC as a plaintiff, arguing that joining new patent owner Uniloc 2017 could not fix a lapse in standing caused by a May 2018 transfer of the Uniloc patent portfolio from Uniloc Luxembourg to Uniloc 2017. Judge Alsup ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, granting their motion to join Uniloc 2017.
EFF Asks to Intervene to Oppose Motions to Seal Clouding May 2018 Deal Between Fortress and Uniloc
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has asked District Judge William H. Alsup for permission to jump into the standing fight between Apple and subsidiaries of NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. Last year, Apple moved to dismiss multiple cases filed against it, arguing that after a May 2018 deal between Uniloc and Fortress Investment Group LLC, the plaintiffs lack standing to assert the patents-in-suit. The EFF, a self-described "donor-funded, non-profit civil liberties organization" with "more than 39,000 active members", has now moved to intervene in those cases (3:18-cv-00360, 3:18-cv-00363, 3:18-cv-00572, 3:18-cv-00365) for a limited purpose: to oppose motions to file under seal the agreements that apparently apportion rights in the large portfolio of patents that Uniloc transferred to Fortress last May, as well as large parts of the parties' briefs arguing about the legal consequences flowing from those agreements. EFF contends that those briefs' heavy redactions, supported only by "rote justifications" in declarations filed by counsel for Uniloc, rob the public of its common law and First Amendment rights of access.
November PTAB Activity Included IPRs Against Fortress as Standing Dispute over Uniloc Deal Escalates, with Apple Rejecting "Oxymoronic" Counterattack
In November 2018, Fortress Investment Group, LLC subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC was hit by a series of inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Apple as the two parties continue to brief a contentious dispute over standing in related district court litigation. November also saw the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) institute trial in IPRs involving Japanese patent monetization firm IP Bridge, Inc. and issue final decisions in IPRs against Quarterhill Inc. and Alacritech, Inc., the latter an operating company-turned-NPE formed by SCSI inventor Larry Boucher.
Fortress Deal Allegedly Running Portfolio Rights Through a "Wood-Chipper" Spawns Both a Standing Fight and a Wave of Refiling
In May 2018, Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited (Uniloc) assigned more than 600 US patent assets, as well as a number of foreign counterparts—seemingly the bulk of its portfolio—to Fortress Investment Group LLC subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC, leading to an avalanche of new litigation. This deal represented the deepening of an existing relationship between the two parties, as a December 2014 security agreement between Uniloc and Fortress indicates that the latter has been funding the former's litigation for years. That security agreement has now become the focus of a standing dispute in litigation filed by Uniloc prior to its May deal with Fortress. In an October motion to dismiss, defendant Apple has argued that by relinquishing certain licensing rights under the security agreement, and other related agreements, Uniloc's former patent-holding subsidiary Uniloc Luxembourg S.à r.l. (f/k/a Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.) and its purported successor-in-interest, Uniloc 2017, were deprived of constitutional standing. Uniloc has just fired back, arguing in a November 12 opposition that the rights transferred in the security agreement did not deprive Uniloc Luxembourg of standing under Federal Circuit law. Meanwhile, Fortress has apparently reconsidered the posture of the cases that it has been filing since the May deal with Uniloc, refiling late last week over 40 of those suits with only Uniloc 2017 as the named plaintiff against defendants that include Alphabet (Google), Apple, AT&T, Barnes & Noble, BlackBerry, Cardo Systems, Cisco, Disney (ABC, ESPN), Hulu, Huawei, LG Electronics, Samsung, Terrano, Verizon, and ZTE.
Throughout October, Fortress Hammers Both Familiar and New Defendants with Former Uniloc Patents
By the end of the first week of October, Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited had filed four cases against Alphabet (Google) this year. Since then, the floodgates have remained steadily open, with the NPEs hitting Google ten more times over the subsequent weeks. In May, Uniloc, a prolific plaintiff on its own, transferred over 600 US patent assets to Fortress, including much of a large portfolio that Uniloc had acquired in January 2018 from Pendrell Corporation. While many of the new cases against Google assert one of those former Pendrell assets, homegrown Uniloc patents and patents acquired from separate sources are at issue in others of those ten cases—and Google is not alone. Three recent Fortress-Uniloc cases have brought the total number of cases filed against Apple since the beginning of 2017 north of 20; a new case against Samsung joins more than ten such others over that same time period; and in recent weeks, the NPEs have also tagged Disney (ABC, ESPN), Hulu, and Netflix with one case apiece.
Fortress-Uniloc Assertion of Former Pendrell Patents Continues Apace
The filing spree of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited continues unabated after handing over the reins of its monetization efforts to Fortress Investment Group LLC earlier this year. Last week alone, plaintiffs related to these entities jointly filed a new suit against Apple in the Western District of Texas, one against Cisco, two against Hike, and four against Alphabet (Google), all in the Eastern District of Texas. Since its acquisition of a large portfolio from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC this past January, Uniloc has been filing new lawsuits on nearly a weekly basis over those patents, on its own, before its transfer of over 600 US patent assets to Fortress in May, and together with Fortress since. That shift in patent ownership came as Fortress announced a new, $400M IP fund focused on patent assertion.
September PTAB Activity Includes Validity Challenges in Wireless and Mobile Device Campaigns
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw activity in AIA reviews against a variety of familiar plaintiffs in September, including validity challenges brought in campaigns targeting wireless communications technology and mobile devices. Among the NPEs hit with petitions for inter partes review (IPR) in September were Intellectual Ventures LLC, which continues to pursue its existing litigation as it divests other parts of its portfolio; and entities controlled by Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, both of which have kept up a barrage of new litigation asserting former Pendrell Corporation patents. Also in September, the PTAB instituted trial in IPRs against Quarterhill Inc. and an NPE related to PanOptis Equity Holdings LLC, and issued final decisions against private plaintiffs including General Patent Corporation.
Fortress and Uniloc Add New Patents in Recent Cases Against AT&T and Verizon
Fortress Investment Group LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited have added two additional patents to one of their existing litigation campaigns with new suits against AT&T (AT&T Mobility) (2:18-cv-00379) and Verizon (Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) (2:18-cv-00380). The plaintiffs accuse AT&T of infringing a patent generally related to system control using a "wireless terminal" through the provision of the Smart Home Manager mobile app, as used to change settings for a home Wi-Fi network; Verizon, of infringing a patent broadly related to the delivery of data through "beacon devices" through the use of Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) beacons in its retail stores, as used to send notifications to mobile devices running the Verizon app. The two complaints each assert additional patents already in suit in the campaign, all of them part of a large, January 2018 acquisition from Pendrell Corporation, with ownership moving to Fortress subsidiary Uniloc 2017 LLC this past May.
Public Records Point to a Fortress Takeover of Uniloc's Monetization Efforts
Last week, RPX reported that a subsidiary of Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited had transferred more than 600 US assets to Fortress Investment Group LLC in May—the same month that Fortress announced a new, $400M IP fund focused on patent assertion. The transacted portfolio, which includes foreign counterparts in Asia and Europe, comprises former Pendrell Corporation assets (including patents originating with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), Philips, and IBM); homegrown Uniloc patents (naming CEO Craig Etchegoyen as inventor); and patents acquired from Ayalogic, Fullpower Technologies, HP Enterprise, and Paragon Solutions. Subsets of those patents have appeared in a recent barrage of new litigation against Amazon, BlackBerry, Huawei, Microsoft, Samsung, and ZTE (with some defendants hit with four or more lawsuits each), filed by subsidiaries of Fortress and Uniloc. Fortress's new ownership of the majority of Uniloc's former US patent portfolio, together with its role as coplaintiff in Uniloc's latest suits, indicates that Fortress—not Uniloc—is likely now in control.
More Suits Against Amazon and Microsoft Follow Transfer of Hundreds of Patents from Uniloc to Fortress
Yet more cases have been filed by Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited and Fortress Investment Group LLC, through controlled subsidiaries—six against Amazon (2:18-cv-00328, 2:18-cv-00329, 2:18-cv-00339, 2:18-cv-00340, 2:18-cv-00341, 2:18-cv-00342), and one against Microsoft (8:18-cv-01320). These filings follow a barrage of new cases filed the prior week against BlackBerry (four new cases), Huawei (one case), Samsung (one case), and ZTE (four cases), as well as against Amazon (four cases) and Microsoft (one case). Uniloc has now launched over 15 campaigns in 2018 alone, most of them asserting patents received this past January from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation. In May 2018, Uniloc executed an assignment of nearly 600 US patents to Uniloc 2017 LLC, a Fortress subsidiary, according to a March 28, 2018 Asset Purchase Agreement, the terms of which have not been made public.
Uniloc Unloads Against Amazon, BlackBerry, Huawei, Microsoft, Samsung, and ZTE, as Apple Moves for Another Transfer out of Texas
Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, through controlled subsidiaries and at least in some instances with the apparent backing of Fortress Investment Group LLC, has continued to roll out new cases in 2018, hitting Amazon (with four additional cases), BlackBerry (four new cases), Huawei (one case), Microsoft (one case), Samsung (one case), and ZTE (four cases) just last week. One of the new suits against Amazon returns to Uniloc's earlier litigation strategy, asserting a patent naming Uniloc cofounder Craig Etchegoyen as inventor, but the other new suits continue the assertion of former Philips patents received this past January from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation. Pendrell sold hundreds of patent assets from its "Pendragon" portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc in January—the patents deriving from multiple original sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) and IBM as well as Philips. Nearly all of the new complaints have been filed in Texas, confirming Uniloc's commitment to litigate in that state, if not solely in the Eastern District, after the US Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in May 2017.
Uniloc Kicks Off a Tenth Campaign of 2018, Again Asserting a Patent Acquired from Pendrell
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed a new case against Box (3:18-cv-03432), asserting a patent generally related to replacing substrings in a file or directory pathname with tokens. At issue in the complaint is Box's "content management and file sharing software", including Business, Individual, and Enterprise editions. This campaign is the tenth that Uniloc has initiated this year, all asserting patents acquired from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation, which sold hundreds of patent assets from its "Pendragon" portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc in January—the patents derive from multiple original sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips.
April 2018 Sees PTAB Begin to Apply SAS Institute and Issue Decisions in Notable Campaigns
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had an eventful April, capped by two US Supreme Court decisions addressing inter partes review (IPR). While the Court found IPR constitutional in Oil States Energy Services, in its companion decision in SAS Institute, the Court also barred the PTAB's practice of instituting trial as to a subset of the challenged claims (partial institution decisions). As a result, since those April 24 opinions, the PTAB has begun to institute trial for all challenged claims for IPR petitions where the petitioner is likely to prevail as to at least one claim (and for all petitioned grounds, a practice not required by SAS Institute). Among the affected IPRs instituted in late April were two against Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC, while the PTAB saw IPR petitions filed in April against Oyster Optics, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also issued final decisions throughout April in IPRs against ChriMar Systems, Inc.; Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd.; Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg; Skky, Inc.; and Uniloc.
Uniloc Launches Two More Campaigns, Targeting Software Update and Anti-Theft Measures in Apple Products
Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited's barrage of litigation against Apple continues unabated. Its subsidiaries Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed two new cases against the tech giant, one (1:18-cv-00293) asserting a patent generally related to blocking the normal operation of a "mobile radiotelephony device" under certain circumstances, and the other (1:18-cv-00296) to managing the reconfiguration of an electronic device. Uniloc acquired both patents from publicly traded NPE Pendrell Corporation, which sold hundreds of patent assets from its "Pendragon" portfolio (held by subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC) to Uniloc earlier this year. The transaction appears to be the divestiture that Pendrell described in a February SEC filing as comprising "patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure" from multiple sources, including Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips.
PTAB Sees Activity in Notable Campaigns During March 2018, Grants Motion to Amend for Realtime Data
In March 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed in a variety of notable campaigns, including those waged by publicly traded Quarterhill Inc.; privately held XR Communications, LLC; and inventor Leigh M. Rothschild. The Board also instituted trial throughout March in campaigns brought by Oyster Optics, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. In addition, the PTAB granted in March a motion to amend in two IPRs against prolific plaintiff Realtime Data, LLC, also issuing final decisions involving patents asserted by Uniloc; Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg; Evolved Wireless LLC; Game and Technology Co., Ltd; and TQ Delta LLC.
Pendrell Assigns Hundreds of Patents to Uniloc
In late March, the USPTO made public five patent assignments from various Pendrell Corporation subsidiaries to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. This transaction appears to be the one that Pendrell disclosed in a February SEC filing—a divestiture it described as comprising "patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure" from multiple sources, including Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. Collectively, the transfers assigned over 445 assets to Uniloc, including patents now being asserted by the NPE in seven recently initiated litigation campaigns.
Uniloc Targets Alexa in Fifth 2018 Case Filed Against Amazon
So far this year, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have kicked off two of their seven new litigation campaigns by filing suit against Amazon, asserting patents recently acquired from Pendrell Corporation. Uniloc, however, has also added cases against Amazon to a couple of the many litigation campaigns that it began last year. The latest (2:18-cv-00123) is a case over a patent received from HP Enterprise, generally related to using a "palm-sized computer" to control a "service" on a network. Uniloc accuses Amazon of infringement through provision of its Alexa platform that allows, for example, certain smartphones and tablets to control other devices, including "Echo Dot, Echo Show, Echo, Tap, and video cameras".
Uniloc Files a Slew of Cases Against Amazon
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) continues its 2018 assertion of patents apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation. The NPE has opened up two more litigation campaigns—its sixth and seventh so far this year—each with a new case against Amazon (2:18-cv-00080, 2:18-cv-00081) filed in the Eastern District of Texas. In the first, Uniloc asserts a single patent generally related to "borrowing" media files, targeting Amazon's Kindle e-readers and web service (and related servers). The Kindle platform, books, and app are the subject of the second lawsuit, over one patent as well, this one broadly concerning distributing "digital assets" across a network. A few days later Uniloc added Amazon to two campaigns (2:18-cv-00091, 2:18-cv-00092) that it began in 2017, each asserting a single patent acquired from HP Enterprise.
Uniloc Filing Pattern Continues: Apple, Samsung, LG Electronics, Huawei (and Others)
So far this year, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have initiated five new litigation campaigns, each with a suit against Apple, quickly adding Samsung to three of them; Logitech to one; LG Electronics to four; and now Huawei to the same four (2:18-cv-00072, 2:18-cv-00073, 2:18-cv-00074, 2:18-cv-00075). The patents asserted were apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC, and the accused products comprise a long list of smartphones, tablets, wireless speakers, and many other computing devices.
Uniloc Continues Filing New Cases Asserting Former Pendrell Patents
Last year, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) initiated 11 new litigation campaigns, all but one of them with a suit filed against Apple. In the subsequent months, Uniloc added LG Electronics (LGE) as a defendant in seven of those campaigns; Huawei in six of them; HTC, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), and Samsung in four of them; and a few other companies in just one. 2018 appears to be shaping up similarly. Uniloc has so far opened up five new litigation campaigns this year, each with a suit against Apple, quickly adding Samsung to three of them; Logitech to one, and now, LGE to four (3:18-cv-00557, 3:18-cv-00559, 3:18-cv-00560, 3:18-cv-00561). The patents asserted were apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC, and the accused products form a long list of smartphones, tablets, wireless speakers, and many other computing devices.
Uniloc Hits Logitech in One of Its 2018 Campaigns
After filing multiple new cases in February, first against Apple, then Samsung, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) closed out the month with a suit against Logitech (5:18-cv-01304). The patent asserted, generally related to delivering data through "beacon devices", is one among several that Uniloc has apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC. In a 10-K recently filed with the SEC, Pendrell indicated that it had divested the "majority" of its "Pendragon portfolio", which contained "patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure" from multiple sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. Logitech joins Apple as defendants in this campaign, with Uniloc's infringement allegations focused on devices that "utilize Bluetooth Low Energy version 4.0 and above".
Uniloc First Pelts Apple, Then Samsung, with Suits Alleging Infringement of Patents Apparently Acquired from Pendrell
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have started 2018 off much as they spent 2017—first suing Apple and then adding other defendants to the new campaigns. Uniloc has filed seven new complaints in the Western District of Texas, each accusing Apple (1:18-cv-00158, 1:18-cv-00159, 1:18-cv-00161, 1:18-cv-00163, 1:18-cv-00164, 1:18-cv-00165, 1:18-cv-00166) of infringing at least one patent that the plaintiff has apparently acquired from Pendrell Corporation subsidiary Pendragon Wireless LLC. As RPX noted last week, in a 10-K recently filed with the SEC, Pendrell indicated that it had divested the "majority" of its "Pendragon portfolio", which contained "patents related to cellular and digital wireless devices and infrastructure" from multiple sources, including the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), IBM, and Philips. The accused Apple devices, across the seven new complaints, include certain models of the iPhone, iPad, MacBook, iMac, Watch, and iPod, as well as the Magic Keyboard, Mouse, and Trackpad; Apple TV (and Apple TV 4K); and Airpods. The day after Uniloc's filing flurry against Apple, the NPE filed four complaints against Samsung (2:18-cv-00039, 2:18-cv-00041, 2:18-cv-00042, 2:18-cv-00044), identifying long lists of similar phone, tablet, and other computing devices as the accused products.
PTAB Saw Continued Debate over Tribal Sovereign Immunity in December 2017
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) remained at the center of a heated public debate over the issue of tribal sovereign immunity in December 2017. Motions to dismiss filed by the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in IPRs against several Allergan patents—acquired by the tribe and licensed back to their original owner to shield them through sovereign immunity—remain pending as the PTAB considers a wave of amicus briefs filed on both sides of the issue. The Board has since denied the tribe's motion for an oral hearing on discovery related to alleged bias held by the USPTO and its leadership, and that bias's effect on the selection of judges for the tribe's case. Meanwhile, among the petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed in December was one brought by Apple against MEC Resources, LLC, an entity owned by another Native American tribe, which took over an existing lawsuit asserting the challenged patent against Apple in the fall. Also in December, the Board issued institution decisions in petitions against Iridescent Networks, Inc.; Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC; and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc.; while an IPR against Packet Intelligence LLC ended in an adverse judgment after petitioner Sandvine prevailed in a November trial.
Uniloc Sues Logitech as Part of Its Wireless Remote Control Campaign
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have continued their string of consecutive weeks adding defendants to the dozen campaigns begun in 2017, last week adding Logitech (3:17-cv-06733) to their campaign asserting a patent broadly related to exercising remote control over a wireless network. Uniloc initiated this campaign by suing Apple in July, adding cases against LG Electronics, HTC, Huawei, Peel Technologies, Wink Labs, and Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), in that order. The campaign has targeted various devices (e.g., smartphones, smartwatches, home security products) used to control other devices wirelessly. At issue in the Logitech suit are Harmony remotes, with related apps.
Uniloc Files Its Sixth 2017 Suit Against Huawei, Its Fourth Against Motorola Mobility, and Its First Against Wink Labs
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) continue to grow the campaigns begun in 2017, of which there have been a dozen so far, even as USPTO assignment records suggest more litigation from the NPE may be coming. Last week, Uniloc added Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) (1:17-cv-01657) and Wink Labs (1:17-cv-01656) to a campaign over a patent, received from HP Enterprise (HPE), broadly related to exercising remote control over a wireless network. Motorola Mobility (1:17-cv-01658) was also added to the Uniloc campaign litigating another patent received from HPE, this one generally related to the exchange of information from a "portable computer" and a telephone, while Huawei (2:17-cv-01746) has been added to a sixth Uniloc campaign in 2017, that one litigating a former Fullpower Technologies patent broadly related to waking up a device based on its motion.
Uniloc Adds Huawei to Two Existing Campaigns, Launches New One Against NetSuite
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have ramped up litigation in 2017, already filing a dozen new campaigns, and unlike in years past, most of the 2017 cases filed have been over patents developed elsewhere and later acquired by Uniloc. In May 2017, Uniloc acquired five patents generally related to the interaction of mobile devices and their users' motion and originally developed at Fullpower Technologies; it has since initiated three campaigns asserting one or more of those patents, this past week adding cases against Huawei to two of those campaigns. Multiple additional 2017 campaigns of Uniloc assert patents acquired from HP Enterprise, and this past week, the NPE began yet another new campaign, this one asserting a patent, broadly concerned with display of data through a web browser, apparently acquired from IBM against Oracle subsidiary NetSuite.
Separate Uniloc Campaigns Hit Huawei and Peel Technologies
This past week, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) added Huawei (2:17-cv-00722) to their campaign litigating a single former HP Enterprise (HPE) patent generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature. Smartphones, smartwatches, and tablets are at issue throughout the campaign, which has already hit Apple, HTC, Lenovo (Motorola Mobility), and LG Electronics (LGE). Huawei is accused of infringement through the manufacture and sale of certain of its smartphones.
October PTAB Activity Includes Petitions Against Repeat Players and Cancellation of Claims from Realtime Data Patent
In October 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw the filing of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against a variety of frequent litigants, including publicly traded NPEs Acacia Research Corporation and Xperi Corporation, as well as privately held Monument Patent Holdings, LLC and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited. The Board also instituted trial in October for IPRs against multiple Acacia subsidiaries, Uniloc, and Papst Licensing GmbH & Company Kg. In addition, the PTAB issued an IPR final decision cancelling multiple claims from a data compression patent held by prolific plaintiff Realtime Data LLC, including the single claim that Riverbed Technology (one of the petitioners for the IPR) was found to infringe in a $4.3M verdict in May, with other final decisions issued in campaigns waged by TQ Delta LLC and publicly traded Quarterhill Inc. IPRs against IP Bridge, Inc. and Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC also ended in termination in October after the patent owners requested adverse judgments.
Uniloc's Complaints for This Week Target More Smartphones…and Some Baby Monitors
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have continued filing new litigation for yet another consecutive week, adding additional suits to three of the 11 campaigns that the NPE has initiated in 2017. Lenovo (Motorola Mobility) has been added to two campaigns, the first case (1:17-cv-01526) asserting one former HP Enterprise (HPE) patent generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature, and the second (1:17-cv-01527) asserting another former HPE patent generally related to the remote display of graphics from a mobile device. The third new case asserts yet another patent received from HPE, generally related to using a "palm-sized computer" to control a "service" on a network, this one against Binatone Electronics (Exclusive Group LLC d/b/a Binatone North America) (1:17-cv-03962).
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Invalidation of Uniloc Software Activation Patent Asserted in Sprawling, 14-Year Campaign
The Federal Circuit has upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) invalidation of a software activation patent asserted by Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited in more than 65 lawsuits against over 145 defendants (2016-2000). The invalid patent is the NPE's most widely litigated, in a campaign started 14 years ago. In an October 23 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's holding, in two inter partes reviews, filed by Cambium Learning Group, Kofax, SEGA, and Ubisoft (IPR2014-01453) and Perfect World Entertainment (IPR2015-01026), that the patent at issue was not entitled to the earlier priority date of two Australian provisional applications. The court then declined to overturn the PTAB's ruling that the patent's claims are invalid in light of prior art.
Uniloc Adds HTC to Three of Its 2017 Campaigns, Huawei and LG Electronics Each to One of Them
So far in 2017, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed eleven cases against Apple. Uniloc subsequently added Samsung and/or LG Electronics (LGE) to several of those campaigns and continued in that vein late this past week, adding HTC (2:17-cv-01558) and Huawei (2:17-cv-00707) to one of them, HTC (2:17-cv-01562) and LGE (4:17-cv-00858) to a second, and HTC (2:17-cv-01561) to a third. Each of these campaigns asserts against the defendants patents that Uniloc received from HP Enterprise (HPE) earlier this year.
Uniloc Files an Eleventh 2017 Case Against Apple
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed an eleventh 2017 case against Apple (2:17-cv-00708), asserting a patent that RPX has followed from Paragon Solutions LLC to Red Dragon Innovations, LLC in a July assignment and from Red Dragon to Uniloc in another assignment earlier this month. The patent generally relates to monitoring exercise, with Uniloc accusing Apple of infringement through the manufacture and sale of smartwatches that "can be paired to allow a first user to share exercise information wirelessly with a second device", naming the Series 2, Series 3, and Nike+ models of the Apple Watch.
Uniloc Hits LG Electronics with Seven Cases in the Northern District of Texas
So far in 2017, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have initiated ten litigation campaigns, all of them against Apple, six asserting patents received from HP Enterprise (HPE), three asserting patents originally developed by Fullpower Technologies, and one asserting Uniloc's own patent. In August and September, Uniloc added cases against Samsung to four of those campaigns, and it has now added cases against LG Electronics (LGE) to seven of them. All of the cases brought so far this month have been filed in the Northern District of Texas.
Transfers to Uniloc and Network-1 Seen Among the Assignment Records Released During the First Week of October
RPX noted among the assignment records posted by the USPTO during the first week of October patent transfers to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.; Blackbird Tech LLC; Network-1 Technologies, Inc.; Intellectual Ventures LLC; Optis Wireless Technology, LLC; and an apparent affiliate of IP Edge LLC.
September PTAB Activity Includes Wave of Networking Petitions and Final Decisions Against Uniloc
In September 2017, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw more than ten petitions filed in NPE campaigns involving networking and related technologies such as cybersecurity, including those waged by publicly traded Finjan Holdings, Inc.; prolific private litigant Realtime Data LLC; and Oyster Optics, LLC. Trial was instituted in September for an inter partes review (IPR) against Finjan and in IPRs against other frequent plaintiffs, including MyMail, Ltd. and Sound View Innovations, LLC. The Board issued final decisions in two covered business method (CBM) reviews against Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, the first AIA reviews against the NPE to reach final decisions since March 2016, and only the fourth to date. The PTAB also issued final decisions in IPRs against publicly traded Document Security Systems, Inc. as well as Acceleration Bay, LLC; Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC; and Personalized Media Communications, LLC; among other NPEs.
Uniloc Sues Samsung in Three Cases over Motion-Sensing Patents
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed ten separate suits against Apple in 2017, adding a second case, against Samsung, in early August to one of those new campaigns. Within two weeks, Uniloc dropped that Samsung suit, without prejudice, but the NPE has now filed three more cases against Samsung, again adding the tech giant to campaigns begun earlier in the year against Apple. The first suit (2:17-cv-00650) asserts three patents broadly related to a device for monitoring human activity; the second (2:17-cv-00651), a single patent generally related to a device for counting its user's steps; and the third (2:17-cv-00652), a single patent generally related to waking up a device based on its motion. Uniloc received all five patents, which were developed at Fullpower Technologies, in a May 2017 assignment. Various mobile devices made and sold by Samsung with the capacity to sense motion are the accused products.
Uniloc Agrees to Transfer Big Fish Games Case but Continues Overall Push to Stay in Texas
The case brought by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, "Uniloc") against Big Fish Games has been transferred from the Eastern District of Texas (2:17-cv-00172) to the Western District of Washington (2:17-cv-01183) by joint stipulation. Although Uniloc agreed to the transfer in this instance, its overall behavior in the wake of TC Heartland has bucked the general trend in which NPEs have either ridden the wave of transfers from Texas or shifted their efforts elsewhere. Many NPEs have increasingly avoided the Eastern District of Texas in new filings while either conceding to venue challenges or dismissing and re-filing existing cases in other venues, with early favorites including the District of Delaware, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Northern District of California. Uniloc, by contrast, has continued to file litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and has shown a greater willingness to push back against venue motions.
Uniloc Launches Tenth 2017 Campaign Against Apple, Adding Samsung as a Defendant to One Filed Earlier
Uniloc—Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (as patent owner) and Uniloc USA, Inc. (as exclusive licensee)—has filed yet another lawsuit against Apple (2:17-cv-00571), again asserting one of the 13 patents that the NPE acquired from HP Enterprise (HPE) this past May. The patent generally relates to using a "palm-sized computer" to control a "service" on a network, with infringement allegations focusing on "palm-sized iOS devices" and Apple TV, the former controlling the latter through operation of the Apple TV Remote app. This newest campaign against Apple comes a day after Uniloc added Samsung (2:17-cv-00562) as a defendant in an earlier campaign launched in late May, also against Apple. The complaint against Samsung asserts a single patent, generally related to remotely dialing a telephone number, accusing Samsung of infringement through provision of devices that, in combination, dial a stored telephone number.
2017 Barrage of New Uniloc Campaigns Against Apple Continues in July
In a mid-May 2017 transaction, Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) acquired 13 patents from HP Enterprise (HPE). With two cases filed this past week added to three filed back in May, Uniloc has now asserted six of those patents against Apple. On July 12, Uniloc sued Apple (2:17-cv-00534) over a single patent (6,622,018) generally related to exercising remote control over a wireless network, accusing Apple of infringement through the manufacture and sale of iOS and MacOS devices that can control remote devices over a wireless connection through AirPlay, with the iOS devices further alleged to infringe through the Apple TV Remote and Apple Home apps. The NPE then sued Apple (2:17-cv-00535), on that same day, over two patents (6,161,134; 6,446,127) generally related to the exchange of information from a "portable computer" and a telephone. The accused products identified in this second July case are various devices (iPhones, iPads, iPod touches, and Macs) that offer the Continuity feature, which in relevant part allows the user to make a phone call from a separate iPhone. Uniloc has now begun nine new litigation campaigns in 2017, each one against only Apple (so far).
June Sees PTAB Petitions and Decisions in Large and Long-Running Campaigns
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw petitions for AIA review filed against a variety of prolific litigants in June 2017, including General Patent Corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), Quarterhill Inc. (f/k/a Wi-LAN Inc.), Realtime Data LLC, Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited, and Xperi Corporation (f/k/a Tessera Holding Corporation). Also in June, the PTAB instituted trial for petitions brought against patents asserted in a variety of sprawling campaigns, including some waged by Acacia Research Corporation, IV, Papst Licensing, Quarterhill, and VirnetX Inc. The Board further issued final decisions throughout June in AIA reviews against patents involved in several notable campaigns, including some waged by Document Security Systems, Inc., Elm 3DS Innovations LLC, Empire IP LLC, and Quarterhill.
Uniloc Bookends June with Suits Against Apple, Paring Venue Allegations Down to Nothing
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, Uniloc) have closed June as they began the month: suing Apple. Roughly four weeks ago, Uniloc asserted two (7,690,556; 8,872,646) of five patents, received in a single May 2017 assignment, in separate lawsuits against the company, and now, on the last day of June, the NPE has asserted the other three (7,653,508; 7,881,902; 8,712,723) in one suit (2:17-cv-00522) targeting Apple's iPhones, iPads, and Watches "capable of counting steps or other periodic human motions". The more recently asserted patents form a family of three generally related to a device for monitoring human activity. Uniloc has now filed seven cases against Apple in 2017 alone.
RPX Blog: As Expected, TC Heartland Decision Triggers Flurry of Venue Filings
Since the US Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, RPX has seen an upswing in venue-related filings by both plaintiffs and defendants—with indications that some NPEs may be throwing in the towel on Texas, while others are seemingly digging in. Defendants have also begun to adapt their defensive strategies, asserting more comprehensive interpretations of the patent venue statute and proactively maintaining their right to bring venue challenges down the road.
Uniloc Hit with Venue Motions After Hunkering Down in Texas
A variety of NPEs have reacted to the US Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands (2016-0341) by either dismissing and re-filing their cases in other districts or simply conceding venue challenges. In contrast, Australian NPE Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited has further dug its heels into the Eastern District of Texas. Shortly after Uniloc filed a series of new and amended complaints against Google, designed to establish proper venue in the Eastern District, defendants in some of the NPE's other Texas litigation filed a host of venue motions against it. On June 2, Ubisoft (2:16-cv-00745, 2:16-cv-00781) filed two motions both seeking transfer to the Northern District of California or dismissal for improper venue in litigation targeting its software licensing and notification systems, joined by a similar motion filed by Piriform on June 7 (in a consolidated action against AVG, 2:16-cv-00393) seeking dismissal or transfer to Delaware. Ubisoft filed another such motion in Uniloc's software update campaign on June 2 (2:17-cv-00175), also seeking transfer to the Northern District of California or dismissal for improper venue, joined by another Northern District transfer/dismissal motion brought by Box (2:17-cv-00173), with campaign co-defendant Zendesk (2:17-cv-00176) filing its own motion to dismiss due to improper venue that same day.
Assignment Records Released by the USPTO During the Second Half of May Reflect Ongoing, and Upcoming, Litigation Campaigns
RPX took notice, among the USPTO assignment records made available during the latter half of May, of the transfer of patents from operating companies HP Enterprise, Panasonic, and Qisda to various NPEs. Two of those NPEs (Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Deshodax LLC) have already launched campaigns asserting some of the transacted patents. RPX also saw during this time the recordation of assignments to Brian Yates; Fortress Investment Group LLC; Intellectual Ventures LLC; Blackbird Tech LLC; and IP Bridge, Inc., among others.
Uniloc Files Yet More Cases Against Apple in the Eastern District of Texas
On May 17, 2017, DP Technologies, an affiliate of California-based Fullpower Technologies, assigned five US patents to Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. The NPE, as patent owner, along with its affiliate Uniloc USA, Inc., as exclusive licensee, (collectively, Uniloc), has filed two separate lawsuits against Apple, each asserting one of the patents received from DP Technologies. The first case (2:17-cv-00469) accuses Apple of infringing a single patent (8,872,646) generally related to waking up a device based on its motion through the manufacture and sale of iPhones and the Apple Watch with "Raise to Wake functionality". The second case (2:17-cv-00470) accuses Apple of infringing another former Fullpower Technologies patent (7,690,556), this one generally related to a device for counting its user's steps. Infringement allegations focus on iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watches capable of calculating steps taken, distance covered, and elevation changed. Both cases have been brought in the Eastern District of Texas, where Uniloc contends venue is proper.
Uniloc Splits Texas Cases Against Google, Pleading Expansive Venue Allegations
The US Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision on proper venue in patent cases has prompted new filings in multiple litigation campaigns, including in the group voice messaging campaign of Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc). In March, before TC Heartland, Uniloc filed three complaints in the Eastern District of Texas against different Google products: Google Hangouts (alleging infringement of 7,535,890; 8,199,747; 8,724,622; 8,995,433); the Android Messages app (alleging infringement of the '890, '622, and '433 patents); and the Allo messaging app (also alleging infringement of the '890, '622, and '433 patents). Just over a week after TC Heartland, Uniloc has responded, at least with respect to its cases against Alphabet (Google) in this campaign, by filing amended complaints in each of those March cases that both drop the '890 and '433 patents and add lengthy allegations in support of Uniloc's contention that venue remains proper in the Eastern District. On the same day, Uniloc also filed new, original complaints against Google, asserting the '890 and '433 patents against Hangouts (2:17-cv-00465), the Android Messages app (2:17-cv-00467), and the Allo messaging app (2:17-cv-00466), again with much more detailed venue allegations.
May Sees PTAB Petitions Against NPEs More than Double
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) saw 54 petitions for AIA review brought against NPEs in May, up from 20 such petitions filed in April. May PTAB filings included a resurgence in petitions against publicly traded NPEs, including Acacia Research Corporation; Pendrell Corporation; Quest Patent Research Corporation; VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.; Xperi Corporation (f/k/a Tessera Holding Corporation); and Wi-LAN Inc. (WiLAN) (which was renamed to Quarterhill Inc. on June 1). A variety of private litigants were also hit by PTAB petitions in May, including Blackbird Tech LLC, Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd., General Patent Corporation, Realtime Data LLC, and Uniloc Corporation Pty. Limited.
Uniloc Files Three More Texas Cases Against Apple
Uniloc USA, Inc. (as exclusive licensee) and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (as patent owner) (collectively, Uniloc) have filed three new cases against Apple. Each new complaint asserts a single patent not seen before in litigation. In the first case (2:17-cv-00454), the NPE accuses Apple of infringing a patent (6,661,203), generally related to changing how a battery is charged based on temperature, through the manufacture and sale of mobile devices (Apple Watch, laptops, iPhones, iPads, and iPods) with built-in mechanisms to prevent overheating. In the second (2:17-cv-00455), Uniloc asserts a patent (6,580,422), generally related to the remote display of graphics from a mobile device, targeting display and/or playback from iPhones or iPads through Apple TV. In the third suit (2:17-cv-00457), Uniloc asserts a single patent (7,092,671) generally related to remotely dialing a telephone number against using iPads and iPhones in combination to dial a stored telephone number. The patents asserted are three out of a group of 13 patents that Uniloc received in a May 16, 2017 transaction from HP Enterprise.
Uniloc Continues to Add Defendants, Myriad Setbacks Notwithstanding
Prolific plaintiffs Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, Uniloc) continue to add cases across multiple open litigation campaigns even as it faces Alice invalidations, trials instituted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), venue transfers, and the withdrawal of Texas litigation counsel.
Uniloc Asserts Three of Its Co-Founder's Patents Against Apple
Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, Uniloc) have filed a new case against Apple (2:17-cv-000258), asserting three patents (8,239,852; 8,838,976; 9,414,199) that name Uniloc co-founder Craig S. Etchegoyen as sole inventor. The '852 patent generally relates to remote updates to a recognized computing device, with the provision of authenticated software updates for iOS devices identified as the alleged act of infringement. The '976 patent generally relates to granting access to content based on the identity of the requesting device; for this patent, Uniloc targets Apple ID authentication services that link a device's Unique Device Identifier (UDID) to a user account. Finally, the '199 patent generally relates to delivering targeted information to a device based on its history, with Apple accused of infringement through provision of its Frequent Locations feature in iOS.
Alice Topples Uniloc's Medical Records Campaign
A Texas judge has invalidated a pair of medical records patents (5,682,526; 5,715,451) asserted by Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (collectively, "Uniloc"). In an order issued on March 30, District Judge Robert Schroeder III granted multiple motions to dismiss filed by Harris Computer, Netsmart Technologies, Picis, Practice Fusion, and QuadraMed in a consolidated action against Medical Information Technology (d/b/a Meditech) (6:16-cv-00463), ruling that the '526 and '451 patents are invalid under Alice as impermissibly directed to the abstract ideas of "organizing medical data in a hierarchy" and "creating and storing user-constructed formulas", respectively. This is the second and final blow dealt to the campaign under Alice, with a single claim from each patent previously found ineligible in an August 2015 decision by Judge Schroeder.
Uniloc Hits Amazon Once and Google Twice More
Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (Uniloc ) have filed three new cases, two against Alphabet (Google) (2:17-cv-00214; 2:17-cv-000224) and one against Amazon (2:17-cv-00228). The -214 case against accuses Google of infringing three patents (7,535,890; 8,724,622; 8,995,433) from a first family of five at issue in its group voice messaging campaign through its Android Messages app, while the company is accused in the -224 case of infringing those same three patents, as well as a fourth (8,199,747) from the same family, through its Google Hangout app. Uniloc asserts three patents from a second five-member family (7,853,000; 7,804,948; 8,571,194) against Amazon, targeting provision of Amazon Chime. This family generally relates to initiating conference calls from an instant message app.
In New Campaign, Uniloc Asserts More Former IBM Patents, Recently Acquired, Against a Familiar Five Defendants
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. and Uniloc USA, Inc. (Uniloc) have launched their first new campaign in over six months, suing Box (2:17-cv-00173), Churchill Downs (Big Fish Games) (2:17-cv-00172), Nutanix (2:17-cv-00174), Ubisoft (2:17-cv-00175), and ZenDesk (2:17-cv-00176) over two former IBM patents (6,110,228; 6,564,229). The '228 patent generally relates to updating software remotely; the '229 patent, to pausing while copying data from one location to another. The NPE has targeted similar features in each of the five defendants' software products that allow for customer-requested or automated updates over the Internet. Big Fish Games and Ubisoft are accused of infringing the '229 patent through their games download portals, within which Uniloc points to the ability to pause the download of a requested game while computer resources are used for other things, before the download later resumes.
Uniloc Adds Six More Defendants to Its Software License and Delivery Campaign
Big Fish Games (2:16-cv-00858), Blackboard (2:16-cv-00859), Box (2:16-cv-00860), Carbonite (2:16-cv-00861), NetSuite (2:16-cv-00862), and Zendesk (2:16-cv-00863) are the latest defendants to be swept into a litigation campaign kicked off by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, Uniloc) this past April. With a subsequent round of complaints filed in July, as well as this newest round, the number of defendants is approaching 20. Four former IBM patents (6,324,578; 6,728,766; 6,510,466; 7,069,293) are asserted; the defendants' software licensing and delivery systems are at issue in the campaign.


Eye of the Hurricane Sculpture in Downtown Clayton.
If you have walked or driven around Downtown Clayton these past few months you have probably noticed the different art sculptures located around town. The sculptures are part of the first-ever Downtown Clayton Sculpture Trail, a project The Clayton Public Art Advisory Board with the support of the Clayton Town Council has established.
Balancing Spheres Sculpture in Downtown Clayton.
These sculptures were created by artists from across the state and put up to visually enhance the downtown area. There are a total of seven pieces on display and they will continue to be up for a year, with the intention to get different submissions next spring to take their place.
A unique detail to this trail is that as you are walking around taking a closer look at these works of art you can use your phone to scan the code on the plaques to watch the individual artists videos and learn more about the sculpture that you are standing right in front of! This interactive detail makes it feel like the artists are taking the tour with you and giving you first-hand details.
With works of art titled things like Balancing Spheres, Geyser, and Eye of the Hurricane (my personal favorite), the Downtown Clayton Sculpture Trail is worth taking some time to enjoy. For more details about the Sculpture Trail visit www.townofclaytonnc.org.
While you are admiring the sculptures around town be sure to look around and get the full small town experience. There are plenty of good restaurants, shops, a brewery, and festivals. For more about Downtown Clayton and lists of things to do while visiting head to www.visitclayton.org.


Prysmian Group offers an extensive range of optical cables for every environment. Cables are available in a wide range of fiber counts, fiber types and mechanical constructions depending on the specific application. OSP, ADSS, Ribbon up to 864 fiber, plenum, riser, LSZH, indoor/outdoor.
FutureFLEX, the first and most technologically proven air-blown fiber system in North America has become the preferred infrastructure for many enterprise networks.
TrippLite is a global manufacturer of power and connectivity solutions for people and organizations that depend on their technology. From uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) and power distribution units (PDU) to cables and rack cabinets, we offer over 3,000 products that enable our customers to organize and protect their critical computer and electronic equipment.
Manufacturer of telephones and mass communication products for industrial, hazardous and campus environments. This includes emergency phones, red alert stanchions, rugged closures for phones, and S.M.A.R.T. self monitoring and reporting telephones. Specially designed telephone systems and telephones are also available.
Offers Copper, Fiber, Telco and Custom Cable assemblies. B S Cable is a certified Woman's Business Enterprise (WBE), based locally in PA and offer fast turn around and competitive assembly prices.
Cable Trays for raised floor, vertical risers on vertical surfaces. Cable Trays for suspended horizontal applications including cabinet and relay rack mounting. Cable Tray for Wall flush mount and wall bracket suspended applications. Snake Tray Custom Solutions services offer engineers the opportunity to have custom solutions designed and built in our factory to solve any challenge in cable management or power distribution.
Cabling and cable management solutions for residential, commercial, security and A/V applications.


There was plenty of enthusiasm and endeavour shown at the  Cricket Camp at Nunholm last week.
Dumfries Cricket Club's Junior Coaching takes place at Dumfries Sports Club on Mondays during the season, 6:15-8, for boys and girls, P4 to S1. Beginners are welcome.
or see www.dumfriescricketclub.co.uk, Facebook(/dumfriescricketclub), or Twitter(@dumfriescricket).