Super Kudumbam is one of the biggest reality shows of Tamil Nadu, it was aired in Sun TV during 2012-2013 on every Saturday between 9 to 10 pm. This show was sponsored by "Amul".
The participants of these shows are the serial artists of various serials of Sun Network. Both the seasons were successful. The judges of the shows were: T. Rajender (Veteran Film Actor) Director/Musician Gangai Amaran (Ilaiyaraja's brother), Actress Meena and Actress Sangeetha. Television actor Deepak and Aishwarya were the anchors of the show.
This reality shows had a lot of contests like dance, comedy, singing etc. for the participants. Serial artists of a team join together and form a group Kudumbam (Family) and throughout the show each team participate in various contests and the winning team (Kudumbam) is crowned as the "Super Kudumbam".
During the first season,"Ilavarasi" team got the second place and the " Uravugal" team won the title. During the second season, "Maruthani" team won the title "Super Kudumbam" and " Bommalattam" team was the runner-up. Film Actor " Jayam" Ravi was the chief guest in the "Grand Finale" and gave away the trophy to the winning team of the second season. The first and second seasons are over; the third season is yet to start.
How Is Cheran's Thirumanam Reception?
Cheran's Thirumanam Team In Dubai!
Superstar Rajini's Muthu In Japan Again!


Rosanne Cash returned home to find inspiration for her new 'The River & the Thread' album. The singer says she headed south to first visit with people she knew, but the trip quickly became so much more. In this video exclusive to Taste of Country Cash explains how she felt a new connection to the land and the soil and the life around her.
"The veils were taken off some things that I thought I knew," Cash says early on in this clip. "It was powerfully inspiring." She and husband and collaborator John Leventhal quickly began writing. He produces the album, while artists like Derek Trucks, John Paul White of the Civil Wars and John Prine were quick to jump on board to collaborate.
During the video fans get to hear samples of a number of the album's signature songs, as well as see photos and video taken of the band in studio. The most enjoyable moments feature the eldest daughter of Johnny Cash talking about her journey however.
"We don't really know who we are as Americans until we know the Delta," she says. During her journey -- which is chronicled in a gallery at Pinterest -- Cash visited lesser-known historical sites like the farms bluesman Howlin' Wolf began playing in, the city that birthed the Civil Rights movement and the famous Tallahatchie Bridge. Her father's boyhood home provided inspiration, and she jumped on board to help Arkansas State University secure the funds to purchase the house.
"All of these kind of mythical places and images gave birth to songs," she says. 'The River & the Thread' was released on Tuesday (Jan. 14).


Aging tie-downs were the culprit when Hurricane Fran knocked or flipped numerous mobile homes off their foundations in North Carolina in September 1996. A Federal Emergency Management Agency study blamed tie-down straps that had broken because they had become loose or corroded by salty coastal air over the years.
1 – 4 foot anchor with a 6-inch helix.
Note: Only a State licensed mobile home installer can install a mobile home in the state of Florida.
Here we are only talking about the installation an extra anchor or two where needed.
Mark the location of the anchor on the ground directly below the attachment point on the home or shed.
Tip: Drop a stone or a piece of dirt from the attachment point to the ground in order to locate the precise placement.
Then mark the ground 6 inches behind this 1st mark this point will be the center off the anchor and will be the location of the mobile home anchor head after its final installation.
Using your post hole diggers start to dig your hole so that the bottom of the hole will be at an angle of 15 degrees towards the home. Dig down approximately 2 feet removing the excess dirt as necessary.
Tip: You may need to widen the access to the top of the hole in order to effectively use the post hole diggers. The sides of the hole tend to prevent the opening of the diggers.
At this point you have a 2 foot hole into which you place the 4 foot galvanized anchor.
Take the 24 inch 2 x 4 and place it in the slot in the anchor head this should give you enough leverage to rotate the anchor head.
Next you will need to turn the anchor in a clockwise direction applying some constant pressure in a downward direction as you turn.
Sometimes the anchor will go in really easily if the ground is sandy but sometimes it can become difficult.
Tip: If you are finding it hard to move occasionally turn the anchor half a turn in the opposite direction to loosen up the ground, then proceed as before.
When the bottom of the anchor is level with the top of the hole stop turning.
Filling in the Hole the Right Way.
The bolt holes in the anchor head should be parallel to the side of the home. Out towards the sides of the anchor head as you look at it from above.
Now take the shovel fill in the top of the hole taking care to tamp down the soil every 6 inches or so to make sure that the ground is compacted and firm.
Tip: Use the end of the 2 x 4 to compress the soil.
Continue this procedure until the hole is completely back filled and the anchor head rests on the soil.
You now know what it takes to install a new mobile home anchor which should now be slightly under the home to clear the skirting and in line with the overhead strap attachment on the home or shed.


Trip ends at MILE MARKER 18!
Newaygo to Anderson Flats Public Access is our short tubing and rafting trip. Until this year we did not allow alcohol for our customers on this trip but due to DNR changes in the amount of people we can allow through our 6 mile trip, we have added this as a 'regular' trip. The only difference is because we have to have people ride back on the bus, they cannot be intoxicated or rude and ride on the bus with other customers. If someone is rude on the bus, even if it is in route, the bus will stop and the rude person will be let off of the bus. Non rude people will get priority on trip back. Thank you for understanding.
The trip runs approximately 2 - 2.5 hours and you can still take your time on the trip, but it is a bit more challenging because we either need to schedule a pick-up time or have the customer bring a cell and call us when they are close to the end of the trip. On busy weekends, we will just pick up every hour on the half hour starting at 2:30 pm until 7:00 pm.
The trip is beautiful and tends to be the perfect trip for families with smaller children that may want to get out and enjoy the river without committing to an entire day on the water.


text:
USPTO Announces Pilot "e-Office Action" Program
Effective December 16, 2006, the USPTO has announced a 6-month pilot program to provide a limited number of Private PAIR users with the option of receiving electronic notification of some outgoing correspondence related to their US patents and US national patent applications retrievable through Private PAIR instead of a paper mailing of the correspondence.
PCT Applications will not be included in this pilot.
Participants can designate up to 3 e-mail addresses to receive notifications associated with a corresponding Customer Number. Each e-mail notification will list all applications in which new outgoing correspondence was prepared for the corresponding file within the preceding 24 hours, and each notification will be entered into the corresponding application files. The correspondence should be available for downloading through Private PAIR within two business days of the date of the email notification.
The period for reply will begin tolling as of the day the correspondence becomes available for viewing.
If successful, the program will convert to full production around June 2007, at which point the program will be open to all users having a Customer Number and access to Private PAIR.
For further information, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free), or send an e-mail to ebc@uspto.gov.
See USPTO announcement here.
E.D. Texas Issues Permanent Injunction in Visto v. Seven Networks
Visto has filed patent infringement suits against a number of "push" e-mail companies, including Infowave Software, RIM, Good Technology, and Microsoft. The leading case in Visto's enforcement effort, Visto Corp. v. Seven Networks (2:03cv333-TJW) obtained an infringement verdict last April. Last week, Judge Ward decided a number of post-trial issues in Visto's favor including punitive damages and permanent injunction. This was Judge Ward's first opinion addressing permanent injunctions after eBay, and marks only the second time in five cases where an injunction was granted in the E.D. Tex. In both cases, the court indicated that being a direct competitor of the patentee was a substantial factor in granting the injunction.
Judge Ward's (short) opinion on the injunction follows:
The court grants Visto's motion for permanent injunction. In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court held that the traditional four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief applies to patent cases. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, U.S. , 126 S.Ct. 1837, 1839 (2006). The Court recited the test as follows:
According to well-established principles of equity, a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Id. Bearing these factors in mind, the court now turns to the facts of this case to assess the propriety of permanent injunctive relief.
A. Irreparable injury.
Visto has demonstrated irreparable injury. The parties to this case are direct competitors, and this fact weighs heavily in the court's analysis. Intellectual property enjoys its highest value whenit is asserted against a direct competitor in the plaintiff's market. In Tivo v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 446 F. Supp.2d 664, 669 (E.D. Tex. 2006), Judge Folsom found irreparable harm because "[t]he availability of the infringing products leads to loss of market share for Plaintiff's products." Seven's arguments to the contrary, focusing on the large market share of Research in Motion, are not persuasive. The court finds that Visto will suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction.
B. Inadequacy of legal remedies.
Visto has also demonstrated the inadequacy of legal remedies. It is true that the jury awarded a large damages verdict. Those damages, however, are designed to compensate Visto fairly and reasonably for its past injury. Under the jury's verdict, Seven is willfully using its competitor's intellectual property and a threat of continued infringement exists under this record. Although future damages may compensate Visto for an approximate loss, that does not make them adequate in the sense that they are a suitable proxy for injunctive relief. What makes legal remedies inadequate under the circumstances of this case is the inability to calculate the plaintiff's future losses with precision. An injunction against the continued use of the plaintiff's intellectual property is the proper remedy to prevent future infringement.
C. Balancing of hardships.
The court has considered the balance of hardships. The court agrees with Visto that if no permanent injunction is entered, Visto will lose goodwill, potential revenue, and the very right to exclude that is the essence of the intellectual property at issue. Although Seven will be harmed by an injunction, the balance of hardships favors Visto in this case.
D. Public interest.
The question presented by this factor is whether the public interest would be disserved by an injunction. There has been no persuasive showing that the public interest would be disserved by an injunction. In fact, the public interest would be served by issuing an injunction to protect the patent rights at issue. After considering the traditional equitable factors, the court concludes that a permanent injunction is proper in this case. The plaintiff's motion for entry of a permanent injunction is therefore granted.
Scalia's Comment Hints at an Early KSR Decision
Justice Scalia spoke last week at a industry group meeting in Northern Virginia, and addressed numerous issues ranging from the death penalty, judicial pay and "constitutional originalism." During the speech, he briefly addressed the KSR case stating that "I know how that one comes out, but I'm not going to tell you." (link) Attendees at the conference were mixed in their interpretation of this comment. Some obviously speculated that the fix was in, and that the Supreme Court had already made up its mind on the outcome of the case. Others interpreted Scalia's comment as an off-hand remark indicating his personal view of the case, but not necessarily reflecting the view of the entire court. At another point in the speech, Scalia acknowledged to the audience that the court sometimes has difficulties following the original constitutional intent of the framers from 220 years ago, especially "when you guys invent some new technology."
Rocket-Dockets Aren't Just For the Eastern District of Texas Anymore
Federal judges in the Northern and Southern Districts of Texas have announced that they will start looking into adopting districtwide patent litigation rules and procedures patterned after those adopted in the Eastern District. Last week (Dec. 12), judges in the Southern District's Houston division met and agreed to consider adopting districtwide rules and procedures for patent litigation. Northern District judges are planning to meet in Dallas in January to consider a timetable for adopting similarly proposed districtwide patent rules.
Draft of proposed rules for the N.D. Tex. here.
Draft of proposed protective order here.
See article from Law.com giving detail and insight on the proposed changes here.
Performance of Software Method Required to Trigger On-Sale Bar
Plumtree Software v. Datamize, LLC (06-1017) - December 18, 2006
The CAFC reviewed the N.D. Ca. grant of summary judgment, finding Datamize's patent invalid for violating the on-sale bar doctrine. Just prior to the one-year date when the patentee filed an application for a software authoring tool used to create an interactive kiosk system, the patentee gave a general presentation on features of the invention to industry members sponsoring a trade show. In exchange for waiving the sponsorship fee, the patentee agreed to provide kiosks at the trade show for other members to use. After the agreement was made, a provisional application was filed, and the patentee proceeded to provide the kiosks a week later.
During subsequent patent litigation, Plumtree successfully argued on a summary judgment motion that Datamize was barred from obtaining patent protection, since the patented subject matter (1) was the subject of a commercial sale or offer for sale, and (2) the invention was be ready for patenting, due to a reduction to practice before the critical date.
In a rather odd decision, the CAFC held that Plumtree did not meet its burden of proof on summary judgment, since it was not clear that the patentee either made a commercial offer to perform the patented method, or in fact performed the patented method for a promise of future compensation. This ruling was made despite the fact that the patentee admitted that the kiosk at the trade show embodied all the claims:
[O]n this record, we cannot sustain the district court's conclusion that the method claims are invalid under the on sale bar rule. The district court reasoned that "the agreement with SIA embodied all of the claims of the '040 and '418 patents" because "the kiosk at the trade show embodied all of the claims.". . . In so holding, the district court relied on Kevin Burns's testimony that "the network kiosk system that was demonstrated in March of 1995 at the Las Vegas show embod[ied] all the claims" of the '040 and '418 patents. These statements reflect confusion as to the nature of the patented product. Here the invention reflected in the method claims is a process for creating a kiosk system, not the kiosk system itself. The kiosk system itself is not patented. The court's focus on whether the kiosk system somehow embodied the claims of the patent was misplaced, and the district court's reasoning does not support a grant of summary judgment. Nor does the record support the ultimate result reached by the district court.
For some reason, the CAFC had trouble reconciling the difference between the kiosk, and the software that was running on it. Also, the court found it significant the the agreement did not contain express language that compelled Datamize to use the patented software methods on the kiosks:
[T]he more difficult question is whether the commercial offer was "of the patented invention." We have stated that "the invention that is the subject matter of the offer for sale must satisfy each claim limitation of the patent." . . . Datamize admits that "SkiPath [was] created with the authoring system" and that the authoring system "embodied all the claims of all three of Datamize's patents." . . . On its face, however, the written agreement between MA [Datamize] and SIA did not unambiguously require use of the patented method. The agreement did require MA [Datamize] to "provide the software/hardware package necessary to produce the interactive touch-screen information center as presented to SIA on January 17, 1995 in McLean, Virginia." . . . This reference to the software/hardware package is ambiguous as to whether it required MA [Datamize] to provide the kiosk system software or to perform the patented method. Moreover, Plumtree has made no showing that extrinsic evidence would compel an interpretation that MA [Datamize] was bound to perform the patented method. Therefore, the record does not provide a basis for summary judgment on this issue.
Moreover, the CAFC could not find anything in the record establishing that Datamize actually performed all the patented steps before the critical date pursuant to the contract.
VACATED AND REMANDED
Partial En Banc Decision Clarifies Intent Requirement for Induced Infringement
DSU Medical Corporation v. JMS Co., Ltd. (04-1620), December 13, 2006
DSU sued JMS for infringing 2 of their patents covering guarded, winged-needle assemblies that reduced the risk of needle-stick injuries. DSU also sued Australian company ITL that manufactured a sheathing structure that was used by JMS to produce the infringing needle assembly. ITL manufactured the sheathing structures ("the Platypus") in Malaysia and Singapore before shipping them to JMS in the U.S.
The jury found JMS directly liable for patent infringement, but found ITL did not engage in contributory infringement or inducement to infringe. One of the key factors was the manner in which the Platypus was manufactured by ITL: in the "open shell" configuration, the structure did not meet all the limitations of DSU's patent claims. However, once the structure was placed in a "closed shell" configuration, the structure began to read on DSU's patent:
The catch here was that the Platypus left ITL's factories in a "open shell" configuration, and JML was assembling the needle sets in a "closed shell" configuration prior to importation into the U.S. While there was evidence that other "open shell" configurations were shipped to the U.S. by ITL, there was no direct evidence showing anyone had actually closed the sheaths and used them as an act of direct infringement:
Upon review of the record, this court perceives, as well, an absence of evidence of direct infringement to which ITL contributed in the United States . . . ITL only contributed to placing the Platypus into the closed-shell configuration in Malaysia; not in the United States. Section 271(c) has a territorial limitation requiring contributory acts to occur in the United States.
The court decided to clarify the intent requirement for induced infringement en banc. Specifically, the court perceived that there was conflicting precedent between two specific cases:
• Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) - "[p]roof of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute infringement is a necessary prerequisite to finding active infringement" (i.e., proof of intent to cause infringing acts is all that is required in order to establish inducement of infringement).
• Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Systems, Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 554 (Fed. Cir. 1990) - "[t]he plaintiff has the burden of showing that the alleged infringerÂ's actions induced infringing acts and that he knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringements" (i.e., with knowledge of the patent, the alleged infringer knew or should have known his actions would induce actual infringement).
Relying on the Supreme Court's Grokster copyright case, the CAFC held that the Manville approach was the correct one for inducement:
Although this court stated "that proof of actual intent to cause the acts which constitute the infringement is a necessary prerequisite to finding active inducement," Hewlett-Packard, 909 F.2d at 1469, Grokster has clarified that the intent requirement for inducement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement. Beyond that threshold knowledge, the inducer must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement. In the words of a recent decision, inducement requires "'that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another's infringement.'" . . . [A]ccordingly, inducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer's activities.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Judge Michel and Judge Mayer agreed with the decision, but noted that there is no actual conflict between Hewlett-Packard and Manville, and thus, there was no need for intervention by the full court.
The Land That eBay Forgot - Patent Infringement Cases Before the International Trade Commission
In light of the Supreme Court's eBay decision, something that didn't get immediate attention was the effect the ruling would have on Section 337 actions before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Unlike district courts, who have a wide range of legal and equitable remedies at their disposal, the ITC is equipped to do only one thing when it comes to patent infringement: grant or deny injunctive relief in the form of exclusion orders to keep infringing products from being imported into the United States.
The ITC has become a favored venue for patent holders, since (1) jurisdiction is derived from the mere act of importation, (2) time for discovery is very limited, which strongly favors a well-prepared complainant that files against an unsuspecting respondent, and (3) cases are all on a "rocket-docket" schedule, concluding in 12-18 months. In the last 10 years, the number of ITC cases has doubled, and it is expected that they will rise further in the years to come.
There are additional reasons to like the ITC if you are a patent holder, according to Robert Hahn, who is co-founder and executive director of the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies - the ITC rules in favor of the patent holder in higher proportions than the district courts, and provide injunctive relief 96% of the time when infringement is found (as opposed to 20% in the district courts). This could be critical for many industries, such as electronic component companies, where products are manufactured almost entirely overseas.
In a "hot off the press" paper published just yesterday, Hahn finds that a pro-patent bias exists in patent infringement cases before the ITC, and proposes either removing jurisdiction from the ITC in most patent cases or imposing the same standard for issuing injunctions as applies in the district courts
Unlike district courts, under Section 337(d), the ITC is will issue an exclusion order when it finds that an infringer has violated Section 337 unless, "after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry." As an empirical matter, a determination that an exclusion order is "not in the public interest" is rare: the ITC has found an injunction to be inconsistent with the public interest in only three of 113 patent cases studied.
More interestingly, Hahn found that recent ITC rulings that favored the respondent were affirmed in the CAFC at a rate of 74%, while rulings in favor of the complainant were affirmed in only 52% of the cases. However, in the small number of "parallel cases" that were filed (where ITC and district court cases are chained together), an ITC decision in favor of the complainant resulted in the same outcome in a parallel case in a district court 55 percent of the time, whereas an ITC decision in favor of the respondent resulted in the same outcome in a parallel case in a district court 46 percent of the time. Notes Hahn:
these results are striking: no matter how the ITC rules, the federal district court rules the same way only about half of the time. We treat the district court decisions as the appropriate baseline because federal district court patent decisions take legal precedence over the decisions of the ITC. Thus, notwithstanding the limitations on the available data, the results of my research raise further questions about the reliability of ITC decision making: by being right only half the time, the ITC does no better than a coin toss.
Hahn also acknowledges the "trolling potential" of the ITC in light of the eBay ruling:
[A]fter a finding of infringement, the ITC offers injunctive relief about five times more often (96 percent versus 21 percent) than do the district courts. This difference would likely have a large impact on the negotiations between a patent holder and an accused infringer. When a patent case is before the ITC, the patent holder can more credibly threaten to pursue injunctive relief to extract a higher royalty rate. This greater bargaining leverage may induce "patent trolls" to file claims at the ITC in the first instance.
A "must read" for any patent litigator dealing with ITC-related issues. Download or read the article here.
See earlier ITC study (1992) by Sheldon Meyer and Mark Miller here.
See also John Mutti & Bernand Yeung, Section 337 and the Protection of Intellectual Property in the United States: The Complanaints and the Impact, 78 REV. ECON. & STAT. 510-520 (1996) (registration required)
CAFC Issues Post-eBay Injunction Decision
Sanofi v. Apotex (06-1613) December 8, 2006
The Federal Circuit issued it's opinion in the Sanofi case Friday, affirming the lower court's grant of a preliminary injunction against Apotex's generic version of Plavix. Sanofi and Apotex were previously involved in litigation over Plavix and tried to settle the case until the state attorney general issued a regulatory denial of various settlement terms. In light of the regulatory denial, the two companies resumed litigation, and Sanofi obtained a preliminary injunction in the lower court when (1) Apotex stipulated to infringement; and (2) the lower court found that Apotex was unlikely to prove invalidity/inequitable conduct/unclean hands at trial.
Since preliminary injunctions are slightly different from permanent injunction (requiring a "reasonable likelihood of success" versus actual success), there wasn't a heavy reliance on the eBay decision. Nevertheless, the CAFC reviewed Apotex's contentions of invalidity, inequitable conduct and unclean hands and concluded that the lower court properly found that the evidence did not establish that Apotex had a reasonable likelihood of success in rendering Sanofi's patents invalid or unenforceable.
Regarding the 3 other factors of the Supreme Court's four-factor test, the CAFC found that irreparable harm could be presumed by Sanofi, even though Apotex argued that Sanofi "bargained away" its right to seek preliminary injunctive relief, since Sanofi inserted specific monetary amounts in an earlier settlement agreement, which stated the following:
If the litigation results in a judgment that the '265 patent is not invalid or unenforceable, Sanofi agrees that its actual damages for any past infringement by Apotex, up to the date on which Apotex is enjoined, will be 50% of Apotex's net sales of clopidogrel products if Sanofi has not launched an authorized generic and 40% of Apotex's net sales if Sanofi has launched an authorized generic. Sanofi further agrees that it will not seek increased damages under 35. U.S.C. § 284.
Because this clause contemplated injunctive relief and addressed only past infringement, the CAFC found the provision favored Sanofi:
We disagree with Apotex that by entering into that agreement, Sanofi bargained away its right to seek preliminary injunctive relief, and thus its right to prove irreparable harm, in the event the settlement was not approved. The above provision itself contemplates an injunction in referring to "up to the date on which Apotex is enjoined" and speaks only of damages for past infringement. In addition, based on other provisions in the agreement, it is clear that the parties contemplated the possibility of a preliminary injunction in the event of regulatory denial. Paragraph 15 of the agreement, for example, sets forth the procedural steps the parties must follow when seeking a preliminary injunction. Moreover, merely because a patentee is able to identify a monetary amount that it deems sufficient to avoid or end litigation does not necessarily mean that it automatically foregoes its right to seek a preliminary injunction or that any potential irreparable injury ceases to exist if infringement resumes.
Apotex also argued that the district court erred by applying a presumption of irreparable harm because Sanofi established a likelihood of success on the merits. Apotex contended that applying such a presumption is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court's decision in eBay. However, because the CAFC concluded that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Sanofi established several kinds of irreparable harm, including irreversible price erosion, the CAFC did not address this contention.
Regarding the balance of hardships and the impact to the public interest, the CAFC also found these factors favored Sanofi, stating that "[t]he patent system provides incentive to the innovative drug companies to continue costly development efforts. We therefore find that the court did not clearly err in concluding that the significant 'public interest in encouraging investment in drug development and protecting the exclusionary rights conveyed in valid pharmaceutical patents' tips the scales in favor of Sanofi."
It appears that the CAFC's decision is consistent with the developing district court trend, finding injunctive relief proper only in "competitor vs. competitor" cases where two actual products are affected by patent rights. Michael Smith from the E.D. Tex. Blog published a recent paper titled"Effect of eBay v. MercExchange on District Courts' Decisions Whether to Grant Injunctions in Patent Cases" and found that, so far, only "productive" patent holders have been able to get injunctions on infringed patents. Download Michael's paper here.
If At First You Don't Succeed . . .
Klein v. Toupin (2006-1486) - December 6, 2006
This case stemmed from a disciplinary proceeding instituted against Klein over twenty years ago which resulted in an order suspending him from practice for two years. Since his suspension, Klein has filed eight petitions for reinstatement with the PTO, several cases in the federal district courts, and three appeals to this court (including the current appeal), each challenging his original suspension from practice.
Klein asserted that the district court erred in holding that he was barred by the doctrine of res judicata from relitigating his constitutional due process claims because his current claims are based on the "Clopper Memoranda," which he did not discover until May 2002. Klein contends that the Clopper Memoranda support his allegations that the PTO concealed the existence of certain evidence he sought during his suspension proceedings, in violation of his due process rights. The Federal Circuit found that
After examining the record before it, the district court noted that (1) the Clopper Memoranda were part of the record considered by the Administrative Law Judge in initially suspending Klein from practice, (2) the Clopper Memoranda were listed in the PTO's exhibit list, which was served on Klein on June 3, 1985 through one of his attorneys, (3) Klein cited to the Clopper Memoranda in his reply brief, filed on October 30, 1985, at the disciplinary hearing, and (4) the record in one of Klein's previous appeals to the district court also included the Clopper Memoranda.
Finding no merit to Klein's argument, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court, and approved the district court's decision to sanction Klein for his failure to heed the CAFC's warning issued during his last appeal to this court, that "[a]ny further filings on the body of facts already in the record will be considered frivolous, and could lead to sanctions."
For more details, and to view the District Court for the District of Columbia opinion, click here.
While the CAFC opinion didn't elaborate on the sanctions, the lower court's opinion made it clear that they have had enough and would not revisit this case again:
Moreover, as Defendants' counsel pointed out in its papers, there seems to be no end in sight to Plaintiff's litigation of this issue. On March 10, 2005, before this Court even had the opportunity to rule on the USPTO's denial of Plaintiff's seventh petition for reinstatement to the USPTO [the one most recently considered by the CAFC], he filed yet another petition for reinstatement before the USPTO.
Because it appears Plaintiff will, left to his own inclinations, continue to litigate this issue indefinitely and to no avail, and in doing so seriously burden the Court and opposing counsel with responding to his frivolous, rambling pleadings, the Court finds it necessary to bar Plaintiff from filing any further complaints in this Court relating in any way to his 1987 suspension from practice before the USPTO.
The Court acknowledges that imposition of such a sanction is a very serious matter. After examining the pleadings in all of Plaintiff's litigation in this Circuit, the Court has concluded that such a measure is necessary.
Adjudication and Settlement of Patent Disputes
Over the past 5 years or so, there has been an increased focus on the empirical outcome of patent litigation, primarily because the number of such lawsuits have increased noticeably. Jay Kesan & Gwendolyn Ball from the University of Illinois have published a recent study titled "How Are Patent Cases Resolved? An Empirical Examination of the Adjudication and Settlement of Patent Disputes." The study builds on previous findings that detail many of the pathologies of the litigation process:
"divergent expectations" - for trials to occur, the parties must be either behaving irrationally, or there must be some uncertainty about the probability of a victory in the courtroom.
"asymmetric stakes" - if the defendant's loss does not equal the plaintiff's gain, there is little incentive for the defendant to avoid trial and no point in bargaining to a settlement.
The "free rider" problem - defendants having an eye towards settlement have no compulsion to spend money to invalidate "bad" patents, since others (i.e., competitors) will similarly benefit from the effort.
Kesan and Ball also noted many of the existing statistics regarding patents and the probability that they will be litigation in court:
• On average, 10.7 patents per 1000 will be litigated (1%);
• The probability of a patent appearing in litigation increases with the number of later patents citing it, but decreases with the number of backward citations;
• Litigation probability increases with the number of "self citations" (patents cited by other patents owned by the same party);
• Litigation probability increases with the number of claims describing the invention;
• Patents in "crowded" fields are subject to an increased probability that disputes will arise.
Regarding the outcomes of the cases, the following statistics were noted:
• The overall decision rate in favor of patentee is 58%.
• In jury trials, 68% of the cases come out in favor of the patentee; 71% of jury trials find that the litigated patent is valid and infringed.
• In bench trials, only 51% of the cases come out in favor of the patentee. Also, 64% of bench trials find that the litigated patent is valid, but only 59% of bench trials find infringement.
The authors tracked the evolution of patent cases from 1995, 1997 and 2000 and found that most of the previous findings were largely correct. However, the study clarifies the notion that "95% of all cases settle," noting that previous studies did not necessarily consider other procedural terminations, such as summary judgment when determining this statistic. When this is taken into account, the number drops to almost 80%.
The paper also had some other interesting findings as well:
Using the courts to invalidate patents at trial doesn't appear to be an effective policy. Despite the greater ability of the court system to review all evidence pertaining to the validity of patents, less than 2.5% of litigated patents appear to be "weeded out" every year in the courts. Combined with reexamination requests, and average of 300 patents a year were invalidated in the mid-90's (as compared to the roughly 300,000 patents that were granted each year).
Also, despite the recent furor over injunctions, permanent injunctions are relatively rare in adjudicated cases (19% at trial, 4% on SJ). Most injunctions appear in consent judgments and formal settlements, and a few appear in default judgments.
Damages were only awarded in a small number of cases. According to the study,
Damages were awarded in only forty-two non-settled cases from 1995 (of which twenty-nine were jury verdicts), 54 non-settled cases from 1997 (of which twenty-three were jury verdicts) and 30 non-settled cases from 2000 (of which nineteen were jury verdicts). The average amount awarded in these cases was $7.4 million, $3.3 million, and $2.1 million respectively.
You can read or download the study here.
Florida Creates "Board Certification" For IP Lawyers
Last week, the Florida Supreme Court approved a program for board certification in specific areas of law (22 to be exact), including intellectual property law. Any lawyer who is a member in good standing of The Florida Bar and who meets the standards prescribed by the state's Supreme Court may be issued an appropriate certificate identifying the lawyer as a "Board Certified Intellectual Property Lawyer."
Some minimum requirements for intellectual property law board certification include:
At least five years of law practice immediately preceding application;
Practicing patent application prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office qualifies if the lawyer is a registered patent attorney or registered patent agent;
At least 30 percent of practice in matters related to intellectual property law during the three years immediately preceding application;
Experience requirements during the five years immediately preceding application for at least one of the following categories: patent application prosecution, patent infringement litigation, trademark law and copyright law;
Satisfactory peer review assessment of competence in the intellectual property law field as well as character, ethics and professionalism in the practice of law;
At least 45 hours of continuing legal education within the three years preceding application; and
Passage of a written examination demonstrating knowledge, skills and proficiency in the field
Interestingly, back in 1963, the Supreme Court ruled in Sperry v. Florida that Florida could not prohibit patent agents from performing within the State tasks which are incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent applications before the USPTO, and that 35 U.S.C. 31 preempted any state laws that governed this area.
View a draft of the proposed rules here.
Tampa Bay Business Journal story here.
E.D. Texas Issues Permanent Injunction in Visto v....
Rocket-Dockets Aren't Just For the Eastern Distric...
Performance of Software Method Required to Trigger...
Partial En Banc Decision Clarifies Intent Requirem...
The Land That eBay Forgot - Patent Infringement Ca...

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The Secrets of Horus video slot is a video slot in the theme of ancient Egypt. Horus is the Egyptian Falcon God who can be found back as the Wild symbol. This beautiful video slot designed by Netent has beautiful symbols, good sound effects, and very nice winnings.
The Secrets of Horus video slot has winning combinations starting at 2 symbols. On the reels you will find various beautiful symbols and the well-known Scatters and Wild symbols. The Secret of Horus video slot does not have a bonus game, but there are nice winnings to be made with the Wild symbols.
The God Horus is the Wild symbol. When you get this symbol on the reels, you will have more chances at getting a win because it can replace other symbols (except for Scatters). Winnings made by replacing a symbol with a Wild symbol will be doubled. When you get two or more Wild symbols on the reels, you will also get a nice win.
The Scarab is the Scatter symbol. When you get two or more Scatters, you will get a win which will be paid out times a multiplier, depending on the number of Scatters. When you get 3 or more Scatters on the reels, you will also get 15 Free Spins. Winnings made during the Free Spins round will be tripled. Additional Free Spins can be won during the Free Spins round.
Minimum bet at 20 win lines (bet level 1 + coin value 2 cent) = 0.40 euros.
Maximum bet at 20 win lines (bet level 4 + coin value 50 cents) = 40 euros.
Winning combinations of the Secrets of Horus video slot must have a minimum of two symbols. Winning combinations only count when they start on the leftmost reel and run consecutively to the right. Only the highest win on a bet line will be paid out. Multiple wins on multiple bet lines will be added together.
To view the winning combinations, you can open the PAYTABLE that can be found below the left reel. Here you can also find an overview of all win lines.
The Secrets of Horus video slot has a number of game settings that may be adjusted while playing. At the bottom left of the screen you can see three buttons: a wrench, a speaker, and AUTO.
The Secrets of Horus video slot is easily operated and fun to play. This video slot is played with the buttons at the bottom of the screen that can be clicked with your mouse. You can set the number of coins you want to bet per win line by clicking the BET LEVEL button. In the black bar at the bottom you can view which level you have selected.
You can set the number of win lines by clicking the BET LINES button. The win lines can also be set by clicking one of the numbers at the sides of the reels.
The MAX BET button allows you to play the maximum number of win lines at the maximum level in one click. You will have to set a coin value. The reels will start spinning at the moment you click max bet. If you do not want to play max bet after you have made your settings, you can click the middle spin button to make the reels start spinning. When you click this button again, the reels will stop spinning sooner.


text:
echo "it's example to grow everything starting from this single file as seed!"

#sudo apt-get install -y git-doc git-gui gitcore gitosis
sudo apt-get install -y git-doc git-gui #gitcore gitosis

echo "know your build ID and board target
Connect your device to a PC and ensure that Developer mode is enabled. Once you have your
device connected correctly, issue a:
$ adb shell getprop ro.product.board
"
read readline

adb shell getprop ro.product.board

echo "This now provides you the value you need when you create your build
Now determine the version number of your build:
$ adb shell getprop ro.build.version.incremental
"
read readline

adb shell getprop ro.build.version.incremental

echo "Dragonboard APQ8060 Programming Guide
Page 5
BSQUARE Confidential
2.3.2 Building Open Sources
If the build number from your device is M8660AAABQNLYA3136-Dragon, then you can follow
these instructions on building. Otherwise, please contact MDPSupport@bsquare.com for build
instructions, giving them the values obtained in section 2.3.1.
"
read readline

wget https://www.codeaurora.org/patches/quic/la/PATCH_MSM8660_8230_Dragonboard_required_modifications_20110928.tar.gz
tar -xzvf PATCH_MSM8660_8230_Dragonboard_required_modifications_20110928.tar.gz
mkdir 8660_GB_2_3_5_2_AU50
cd 8660_GB_2_3_5_2_AU50
repo init --repo-url=git://codeaurora.org/tools/repo.git -u git://codeaurora.org/platform/manifest.git -b gingerbread_house -m M8660AAABQNLYA3136.xml
repo sync -j4
source build/envsetup.sh
choosecombo 1 1 msm8660_surf eng
repo start work --all
cd bootable/bootloader/lk/
git am --ignore-whitespace ../../../../patches/local/bootable/bootloader/lk/*.patch
cd ../../../kernel
git am --ignore-whitespace ../../patches/local/kernel/*.patch
cd ..
make -j4 BUILD_NUMBER=M8660AAABQNLYA3136-Dragon

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Lewis Wolpert was Professor of Biology at University College, London, and served for five years as Chairman of COPUS, the British Committee for the Public Understanding of Science. He was a faithful standby for the media for more than 20 years as a denouncer of ideas that he suspected were tainted with mysticism or the paranormal.
In 2001, in a programme about some of my telepathy experiments on the Discovery Channel, he proclaimed, "There is no evidence for any person, animal, or thing being telepathic." The director of the documentary offered to show him a video of my experiments so that he could see the evidence for himself, but he was not interested. He preferred to make his skeptical claim without looking at the facts.
For anyone who wants to hear both sides for themselves, the debate is online in streaming audio, as is the transcript.


text:
Where Are Meghan Markle and Prince Harry During Trooping the Colour 2022?
The Queen's birthday parade, Trooping the Colour, is ongoing in London this morning, and so far, photos have come out of Kate Middleton and her and Prince William's three children Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis in the carriage procession. The family of five will join the Queen on the balcony for the flypast shortly.
Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and their two children Archie and Lilibet are also in London; the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are confirmed to be attending Trooping the Colour. So where are they, and why weren't they in the carriage procession or on the balcony?
Yesterday, the Royal Family announced that Meghan and Harry will be at the Major General's Office watching the parade with other members of the royal family. Kate would be there with them too. Initially, no photos were released of the family watching. Later, a couple photos came out of Meghan in the window with the Queen's great-grandchildren Savannah Phillips and Mia Tindall. It offered just a hint of her outfit as it was taken from a distance. The one below showcases it a bit too. Meghan paired a Stephen Jones hat with a navy dress.
Benjamin Wareing / Alamy Stock Photo
It's possible the Duke and Duchess of Sussex could release their own photos later as well, showcasing their outfits and experience at Trooping the Colour. But Meghan and Harry are not part of public-facing parts of the parade, so their not being photographed the same way Kate, William, and the Cambridge kids have is to be expected.
Buckingham Palace announced last month that Meghan, Harry, and other non-working royal members were not invited to join the Queen on the balcony this year, eliminating one major public appearance the Sussexes could've had. A palace spokesperson said early last month of the decision, "After careful consideration, the Queen has decided that this year's traditional Trooping the Colour balcony appearance on Thursday 2nd of June will be limited to Her Majesty and those members of the Royal Family who are currently undertaking official public duties on behalf of the Queen." Meghan and Harry stepped back from their working senior royal family roles in 2020.
Harry and Meghan arrived in London yesterday with their children. The family is staying at their Frogmore Cottage home in Windsor. TMZ reports the family has been given police protection for royal events and while staying at their residence.
Alyssa Bailey
Senior News and Strategy Editor
Alyssa Bailey is the senior news and strategy editor at ELLE.com, where she oversees coverage of celebrities and royals (particularly Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton).
← Angela Gargano on Strong Feels Good, Getting Your First Pull-Up & What if It All Goes Right?
The Best Ways To Avoid 5 Common Marketing Mistakes Grow – →
How to Turn Grief and Rage Into Progress After SCOTUS Ruling
How a Crocheted Grandma Hat Became a Celebrity Style Grail
The 30 Best Fashion Sale Finds on the Internet
//woafoame.net/4/5137559


text:
from oslo_versionedobjects.tests import test_objects

from cinder import objects

class BaseObjectsTestCase(test_objects._LocalTest):
    def setUp(self):
        super(BaseObjectsTestCase, self).setUp()
        # Import cinder objects for test cases
        objects.register_all()


This Ecma Standard specifies the characteristics of 130 mm Optical Disk Cartridges (ODC) with a capacity of 1,3 Gbytes per cartridge. The Standard specifies four related, but different implementations of such cartridges, viz.
Provides for data to be written, read, and erased many times over the whole of both recording surfaces of the disk using the thermo-magnetic and magneto-optical effects.
Provides for a part of both disk surfaces to be pre-recorded and reproduced by stamping or other means. This part of the disk is read without recourse to the magneto-optical effect. All parts which are not pre-recorded, provide for data to meet the requirements of Type R/W.
Provides for the whole of both disk surfaces to be pre-recorded and reproduced by stamping or other means. This type of disk is read without recourse to the magneto-optical effect.
Provides write once, read multiple functionality on both disk surfaces using the thermo-magnetic and magneto-optical effects.
This Ecma publication is also approved as ISO/IEC 13549.


Business Game Changers Radio with Sarah Westall: Corporate Espionage is on the Rise; Has the NSA created a Spy Economy?
NSA and many other government agencies have created an army of trained spies with high-level skills that they are eager to sell after leaving the government agencies that have trained them. Many of these ex-spies are eager to earn a better living by selling their services and blurring the line between legal and illegal activities. On top of this, increasing worldwide competition and shady business practices are motivating corporate executives to play the game. This week Brian O'Shea, CEO of Striker Pierce, which specializes in intelligence collection and investigations for private clients, joins us to share with us how this industry is growing and changing business.


text:
Study suggests new strategy for treating advanced, progressing bile duct cancer
by Ohio State University Medical Center
Credit: Ohio State University Medical Center
A new study led by researchers at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center—Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute (OSUCCC—James) shows how resistance to a promising targeted drug develops in patients with a rare, lethal cancer of the bile ducts called cholangiocarcinoma.
The study, reported in the journal Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, also suggests that adding another drug at the time of progression might re-sensitize tumor cells to the initial drug, called an FGFR inhibitor.
"While the majority of patients with FGFR-positive cholangiocarcinoma benefit from new FGFR inhibitors in clinical trials, most patients unfortunately develop cancers resistant to the drugs," says study leader Sameek Roychowdhury, MD, Ph.D., a medial oncologist and researcher at the OSUCCC—James. "We believe that this study is an important step in understanding drug resistance, and improving the treatment of this and other cancers caused by abnormal FGFR gene mutations."
Findings also suggest that monitoring fragments of circulating tumor DNA for acquired mutations that cause resistance to FGFR inhibitors may reveal the presence of resistance mutations and mark the time a patient should begin taking the additional drug, an mTOR inhibitor.
The successful treatment of cholangiocarcinoma is challenging because the disease is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage that has a five-year survival rate of 2%. Patients diagnosed earlier also have low five-year survival due to high rates of disease recurrence. Abnormal activation of the FGFR gene happens in 15 to 20% of people with cholangiocarcinoma, and FGFR inhibitors show effectiveness in 70 to 80% of those patients until resistance develops. There are six studies of FGFR inhibitors in clinical trials at the OSUCCC—James.
"A better understanding of how treatment resistance develops and how to prevent it is critical for improving the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and other cancers caused by FGFR mutations," says first author Melanie Krook, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow in Roychowdhury's lab.
"Our findings suggest that cholangiocarcinoma patients treated with an FGFR targeted therapy could potential benefit from combination therapies with other drugs such as mTOR inhibitors. Additional laboratory studies are needed to identify the optimal lead strategies for this combination," she adds.
For this study, Roychowdhury, Krook and colleagues examined the FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) gene in the cancer cells of a cholangiocarcinoma patient who died after experiencing disease progression and developing resistance to the FGFR inhibitor infigratinib.
The researchers identified two acquired FGFR mutations in the patient's tumor cells that conferred resistance to FGFR inhibitors. They then used cancer cell lines to learn that the mutations led to activation of the mTOR biochemical pathway. This enabled the cancer cells to grow even in the presence of FGFR inhibitors. Adding an mTOR inhibitor to the cells restored their sensitivity to FGFR inhibitors.
Two acquired FGFR2 mutations, p.E565A and p.L617M, were shown to drive resistance to the FGFR inhibitor infigratinib.
The p.E565A mutation upregulates the mTOR signaling pathway, which desensitizes cholangiocarcinoma cell lines to infigratinib and other FGFR inhibitors.
A drug that inhibited the mTOR pathway restored the sensitivity of the cells to infigratinib and other FGFR inhibitors.
"Overall, our findings suggest that an mTOR inhibitor administered at the time of progression may re-sensitize tumor cells to an FGFR inhibitor in patients who develop resistance to these agents," Roychowdhury says.
Study identifies how cancer cells may develop resistance to FGFR inhibitors
More information: Melanie A. Krook et al. Efficacy of FGFR inhibitors and combination therapies for acquired resistance in FGFR2-fusion cholangiocarcinoma, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics (2020). DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-19-0631
Journal information: Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Provided by Ohio State University Medical Center
Citation: Study suggests new strategy for treating advanced, progressing bile duct cancer (2020, January 14) retrieved 29 January 2020 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-01-strategy-advanced-bile-duct-cancer.html
Estimates of preventable hospital deaths are too high, new study shows
Abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy the only safe approach
Researchers use brain organoids to study pediatric brain tumors
Mass. General team identifies mechanisms behind resistance to FGFR inhibitor drug
Clinical sequencing technology identifies new targets in diverse cancers
Phase I study of novel anti-cancer drug uses tumor mRNA expression to identify responders
Hope for better lung cancer treatment on horizon
Targeted investigational therapy shows early promise against multiple cancer types
AI can jump-start radiation therapy for cancer patients
Study examines prostate cancer treatment decisions
Protein AKAP8 suppresses breast cancer metastasis
Micro-scaled method holds promise as improved cancer diagnostic platform


text:
katrinaolson.ca - KO Interview: Jay Baruchel for Goon: Last of the Enforcers
Posted on Wednesday, March 15, 2017 at 10:00 AM
KO Interview: Jay Baruchel for Goon: Last of the Enforcers
Interview by Katrina Olson-Mottahed x CalgaryMovies.com
It doesn't get much more Canadian than the movie Goon. If you saw the first film in 2011, you would recognize the all star cast of Seann William Scott, Jay Baruchel, Alison Pill, Liev Schreiber and Kim Coates. Goon was a comedy about hockey, family and determination.
Yesterday, I was lucky enough to sit down with writer, actor and director of the sequel to Goon, Jay Baruchel, to talk about Goon: Last of the Enforcers.
Goon: Last of the Enforcers in about a hockey lockout that reunites old teammates and brings together a crew of new players to the bench for the Halifax Highlanders. Sidelined after one too many hits and now married with a baby on the way, Doug "The Thug" Glatt (played by Seann William Scott) hangs up his skates and settles into life as an insurance salesman. But when Doug's nemesis, Anders Cain (Wyatt Russell), is made captain of the Highlanders and new ownership threatens to tear his team apart, Doug is compelled back into action.
Calgary Showtimes: Goon: Last of the Enforcers >


text:
Goods & Commodities
Smartsheet - Get News & Ratings Daily
Enter your email address below to get the latest news and analysts' ratings for Smartsheet with our FREE daily email newsletter:
Follow Ticker Report
Bloom Energy (NYSE:BE) Shares Down 5.9%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:REGN) Trading Down 5.8%
EnLink Midstream (NYSE:ENLC) Stock Price Down 5.6%
Webster Financial (WBS) Set to Announce Quarterly Earnings on Thursday
Textron (TXT) to Release Earnings on Wednesday
Mastercard (MA) Scheduled to Post Earnings on Wednesday
Associated Banc (ASB) Set to Announce Earnings on Thursday
Forestar Group (FOR) Scheduled to Post Quarterly Earnings on Thursday
Discover Financial Services (DFS) to Release Quarterly Earnings on Thursday
RWE (FRA:RWE) PT Set at €34.00 by Goldman Sachs Group
Kion Group (FRA:KGX) PT Set at €56.00 by Morgan Stanley
RWE (FRA:RWE) Given a €35.00 Price Target by UBS Group Analysts
Symrise (FRA:SY1) Given a €92.00 Price Target by Baader Bank Analysts
Zalando (FRA:ZAL) PT Set at €46.00 by Goldman Sachs Group
Basf (ETR:BAS) PT Set at €77.00 by Baader Bank
Hugo Boss (ETR:BOSS) PT Set at €46.00 by Credit Suisse Group
Daimler (ETR:DAI) Given a €52.00 Price Target by Deutsche Bank Analysts
Deutsche Boerse (ETR:DB1) PT Set at €165.00 by Jefferies Financial Group
Draegerwerk AG & Co KGaA (ETR:DRW3) PT Set at €43.00 by Kepler Capital Markets
Jungheinrich (ETR:JUN3) PT Set at €17.50 by Berenberg Bank
Smartsheet (NYSE:SMAR) Shares Gap Down on Insider Selling
Posted by Logan Wallace on Dec 11th, 2019
Shares of Smartsheet Inc (NYSE:SMAR) gapped down prior to trading on Monday after an insider sold shares in the company. The stock had previously closed at $46.13, but opened at $44.66. Smartsheet shares last traded at $43.22, with a volume of 2,644,436 shares.
Specifically, Director Geoffrey T. Barker sold 16,700 shares of the company's stock in a transaction that occurred on Wednesday, September 18th. The stock was sold at an average price of $41.25, for a total value of $688,875.00. Also, CEO Mark Patrick Mader sold 40,000 shares of the company's stock in a transaction that occurred on Friday, October 11th. The shares were sold at an average price of $38.52, for a total value of $1,540,800.00. In the last 90 days, insiders have sold 528,150 shares of company stock valued at $20,815,403. 24.73% of the stock is owned by corporate insiders.
Get Smartsheet alerts:
SMAR has been the subject of several recent research reports. Canaccord Genuity cut their price target on Smartsheet from $53.00 to $45.00 and set a "buy" rating for the company in a report on Wednesday, October 2nd. Oppenheimer cut their price target on Smartsheet from $58.00 to $53.00 and set an "outperform" rating for the company in a report on Wednesday, October 2nd. Zacks Investment Research cut Smartsheet from a "buy" rating to a "hold" rating in a report on Thursday, October 10th. Royal Bank of Canada cut their price target on Smartsheet from $60.00 to $53.00 and set an "outperform" rating for the company in a report on Thursday, October 3rd. Finally, Stephens reaffirmed a "buy" rating and issued a $55.00 price target on shares of Smartsheet in a report on Tuesday, September 10th. Four equities research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and eleven have assigned a buy rating to the company's stock. The stock currently has an average rating of "Buy" and a consensus target price of $50.50.
The company has a current ratio of 3.50, a quick ratio of 3.50 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.08. The stock has a fifty day moving average price of $41.96 and a 200-day moving average price of $44.91. The firm has a market capitalization of $5.04 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of -70.74 and a beta of 2.02.
Smartsheet (NYSE:SMAR) last issued its earnings results on Wednesday, December 4th. The company reported ($0.15) earnings per share (EPS) for the quarter, topping the Zacks' consensus estimate of ($0.28) by $0.13. Smartsheet had a negative return on equity of 26.57% and a negative net margin of 32.50%. The business had revenue of $71.50 million during the quarter, compared to analysts' expectations of $69.83 million. During the same period in the prior year, the firm posted ($0.09) EPS. Smartsheet's quarterly revenue was up 52.5% compared to the same quarter last year. On average, equities analysts expect that Smartsheet Inc will post -0.88 EPS for the current year.
Several institutional investors and hedge funds have recently modified their holdings of SMAR. FMR LLC raised its holdings in shares of Smartsheet by 754,292.5% in the 1st quarter. FMR LLC now owns 1,214,572 shares of the company's stock worth $49,542,000 after buying an additional 1,214,411 shares in the last quarter. First Trust Advisors LP raised its holdings in shares of Smartsheet by 0.4% in the 1st quarter. First Trust Advisors LP now owns 86,589 shares of the company's stock worth $3,532,000 after buying an additional 318 shares in the last quarter. Commonwealth Equity Services LLC acquired a new position in shares of Smartsheet in the 2nd quarter worth approximately $224,000. Virginia Retirement Systems ET AL acquired a new position in shares of Smartsheet in the 2nd quarter worth approximately $586,000. Finally, Systematic Financial Management LP acquired a new position in shares of Smartsheet in the 2nd quarter worth approximately $118,000. 74.26% of the stock is owned by institutional investors and hedge funds.
Smartsheet Company Profile (NYSE:SMAR)
Smartsheet, Inc engages in managing and automating collaborative work. Its platform provides solutions that eliminate the obstacles to capturing information, including a familiar and intuitive spreadsheet interface as well as easily customizable forms. The company was founded by W. Eric Browne, Maria Colacurcio, John D.
Further Reading: Different Options Trading Strategies
Receive News & Ratings for Smartsheet Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for Smartsheet and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter.
Cerus (NASDAQ:CERS) Sets New 12-Month Low After Insider Selling
Tesco (OTCMKTS:TSCDY) Receives Daily News Impact Rating of 1.33
Bloom Energy Shares Down 5.9%
Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Trading Down 5.8%
EnLink Midstream Stock Price Down 5.6%
Webster Financial Set to Announce Quarterly Earnings on Thursday
Textron to Release Earnings on Wednesday
Mastercard Scheduled to Post Earnings on Wednesday
Market Coverage
Market Downgrades
Market Upgrades
Target Adjustments
Analyst Articles – Australia
Analyst Articles – CA
Analyst Articles – Europe
Analyst Articles – UK
Analyst Articles – US
Dividend Articles
Earnings Articles – Single
Guidance Articles
© 2006-2020 Ticker Report


ASTM International has released a new standard, F3049: Guide for Characterizing Properties of Metal Powders Used for Additive Manufacturing Processes. It's designed to provide guidance for engineers looking to measure the properties of AM powders, which find use in high-grade biomedical implants, automotive and aerospace parts.
Download the standard (as a PDF) at www.astm.org/Standards/F3049.htm.
In the works: a companion standard, ASTM WK43112, Guide for Evaluating Mechanical Properties of Materials Made Via Additive Manufacturing Processes.


text:
class FilterUsernamesParamsValidator < ActiveModel::EachValidator
  def validate_each(record, _attribute, value)
    return if value.blank?
    return if value.match?(/\A[A-Za-z0-9_,]+\z/)

    message = I18n.t("messages._validators.is_invalid")
    record.errors.add(:filter_usernames, message)
  end
end


Rounds of Creativity, Conversation and Spirituality (RoCCS) are group sessions of creative process for the purpose of experiencing common/unique experience, perspective and insight. As such, RoCCS are experiences of collaboration -- enhancing the capacity of group impact by individual participation. RoCCS are planned/ intentional circle gatherings with a process. The most challenging aspect to RoCCS is scheduling a group of people who will show up, on time, and stay to the end (when listening and sharing reveal invaluable insight and inspiration).


text:
For full functionality of this website it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Please change the settings of your web browser.
MUFG MUFG Bank
The Origins of Our Bank
Global Wholesale Foreign Exchange Dealing Disclosures
MUFG Bank Corporate Governance Policies
Investor Information for Bond Customers
To Bond Investors
Global Financial Crimes Policy Statement
Syndicated Loan
Cross Border Syndicated Loan
Samurai Loan
ECA Finance
Acquisition Finance (LBO / MBO / Corporate M&A)
Accounts Receivable Purchases Programs
Personal banking services for residents of Japan
Renminbi Business
Transaction Services for Financial Institutions
JPY Cash Clearing
JPY Custody
Global Network Top
Europe, The Middle East & Africa
Newsroom Top
Job Opportunities at MUFG Bank
Reports Top
Legal & Compliance information
Notice about financial crime
[ Main contents start here ]
Could COVID-19 be the catalyst to a new healthcare paradigm in Asia Pacific?
COVID-19 has globally catapulted the healthcare sector to the front and center of public consciousness and policy makers' attention alike. Its impact on the healthcare industry is undeniable, but what is also noteworthy is the spotlight it has shone on affordability and accessibility of care to its end consumers, namely the patient. In this article, MUFG's APAC healthcare team looks at how the healthcare industry adapted swiftly to the pandemic, the further changes we anticipate and whether they, on balance, will create a 'new normal' for the sector. We believe that the healthcare sector will maintain its investment attractiveness, continue to draw capital and despite this pandemic, will see investment in innovation and solutions that go towards delivering patient-centric care.
At the time of writing, COVID-19 has infected over 23 million people worldwide and thrown the global economy into disarray. The United Nations Secretary-General calls it an 'unparalleled economic shock(1) '. Although the negative impact of the coronavirus extends to all sectors and trade flows, COVID-19 is first and foremost a 'global healthcare crisis' which has laid bare the shortcomings and challenges facing healthcare systems across the globe.
The current situation, however, is also a clarion call to all stakeholders in the healthcare delivery ecosystem to address long standing pressure points for the industry and for patients. These include the perpetual shortage of medical personnel (access), weak primary healthcare (access), high cost structures of hospitals (affordability) and capital expenditure-intensive business models (availability). Similarly, the pharmaceuticals sector, though less impacted by COVID-19 compared to healthcare services and medtech sectors, will also have to think through its own pressure points brought forth by the pandemic, notably, single-source supply chains and logistical dependencies, offline-only sales strategies, product mix as well as an increasingly insular world calling out for local manufacturing.
The potential changes in the healthcare system will be driven by a mix of factors, ranging from regulation, increasing public focus on healthcare access and infrastructure, to providers adjusting to new realities of the post-COVID-19 era.
REVIEWING THE PRIVATE HEALTHCARE DELIVERY MODEL
Private hospitals generate value primarily by increasing the number of their operational beds, occupying them with a higher profit case-mix and spreading the costs of doctors across more beds. This is a highly capital intensive business strategy, but one which is under-pinned by the essential nature of the service in a world that is rapidly aging and increasingly prone to chronic diseases. In fact, this pandemic has reminded governments of the value the private healthcare sector brings to the overall well-being of the population.
Post COVID-19, we expect private hospitals to rationalise their cost structures, as they accommodate additional costs imposed by revised infection protocols and safe distancing norms. Hospitals will also have to rethink their own supply chain strategies, having experienced bottlenecks during the initial phases of lockdowns. The financial impact from deferment of electives as well as macro-recessionary headwinds may act as a catalyst to mergers and acquisitions in this space.
As service providers wait for a ramp-up of elective treatments, private care facilities, in particular those dependent on healthcare tourism, will remain vulnerable to any resurgence in COVID outbreaks. They should remain agile and be open to solutions not considered hitherto, such as repurposing facilities or adding alternative healthcare delivery models, for example, day care or ambulatory care.
DIGITISATION IN HEALTHCARE
Digital health solutions will also take center stage for established hospital chains. During the first half of this year we saw a tremendous increase in the usage of digital health tools such as remote triaging, teleconsultations, e-prescription and home delivery of prescription drugs, and we expect this trend to continue. We expect hospital chains to continue integrating their legacy offline-only delivery models with online delivery systems. To do so, service providers will have to look at different strategies and weigh the risks and rewards for each, namely, building proprietary digital solutions (requires organisational focus, resources and agility), partnering (need to ensure data security and service quality) or to simply acquire (costly, and integration is key).
Indeed, going forward, digital interfaces may very well be the preferred first touch-point between care providers and patients. The deferment of electives during the pandemic has further illustrated the importance of remote disease monitoring and management. Nonetheless, whilst teleconsultations may support volumes during COVID-19 lockdowns and as economies re-open, this is just the first step in the process of digitising delivery. Private healthcare service providers need to continue to incorporate more aspects of digital technology, such as big data, IoT and AI, in their end-to-end delivery continuum so as to effectively navigate a new societal paradigm that embraces virtual care delivery.
COVID-19 has brought a renewed focus on universal healthcare (UHC). Countries in APAC with robust UHC frameworks were able to tackle the spread of the pandemic more effectively. Going forward, we expect to see an increase in governmental focus and spend (including capital expenditure) on public healthcare infrastructure, which in emerging Asian economies should lead to rapid strides in UHC.
The healthcare sector suffers from a perennial shortage of medical professionals which, at the current rate of growth, may take decades to address. Regulators could look at putting existing resources to better use by empowering experienced non-doctor medical staff, especially in primary care settings, while non-specialists could also selectively manage chronic patients and provide relevant repeat prescriptions. For example, Singapore and Australia allow a select category of nurses to write prescriptions.
During COVID-19, we have already seen how regulatory easing and clarity accelerated the adoption of digital health services. As patients and providers evolve in their digital journey, regulations will have to remain nimble to address any concerns on standard of care and data privacy and protection. Similarly, regulations will have to keep pace with expected standards for home healthcare, which will continue making rapid strides.
THE PROMISE OF A VACCINE AND A REVIEW OF GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS
The development of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines will remain the top priority of pharmaceutical companies and governments for the immediate future, as evidenced by more than 160 COVID-19 vaccine projects under development. Aided by an unprecedented push to accelerate approvals and a few promising results in early-stage trials, a vaccine is more likely to be available globally in the first half of 2021.
Going by the massive investments in research and the global manufacturing and distribution footprint currently being developed, a swift and worldwide availability of multiple vaccine solutions is expected. However, there are still some variables to consider, such as the level and duration of protection offered (lifelong / seasonal), number of doses required (one shot or regular boosters), how will supplies be prioritised, evolution of supply chains and pricing. Considering the globally pervasive nature of this pandemic, it is crucial that countries work closely in a globally coordinated manner to ensure widespread availability of safe and effective vaccines.
There is some uncertainty over supply chain continuity for pharmaceuticals, mainly due to evolving geopolitics, trade wars and vulnerabilities brought forth by lockdowns. These have renewed calls by some countries to relocate essential drug production closer to their own shores. We expect the pandemic to have a lasting effect on how pharmaceutical companies and governments think of drug supply chains, for raw material as well as finished products. Due to the essential nature of the pharma and biotech industries, this pandemic will not immediately spell the end of globalisation for these sectors, but will lead to a gradual and steadfast diversification of supply sources as well as a calibrated increase in near-shoring capabilities for certain drug categories. There will be a cost impact of such moves, unless support is provided by governments, and this remains a key variable to determine the success and extent of such changes.
The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that existing healthcare systems still have some distance to cover in terms of affordability, access and availability. Not addressing these issues can result in significant loss of human lives, which, of course, is not acceptable. Given the learnings from COVID-19 and also the tacit acceptance that the current pandemic will not be the last public health crisis that nations will face, we see renewed appreciation that investments in healthcare systems, innovation and drug research and development are essential.
The future of healthcare is in moving closer to the patient. Patients, when empowered, are active participants in their own treatment, thereby increasing compliance and improving medical outcomes. Systemic changes spearheaded by enlightened stakeholders can act as a catalyst and accelerate the transformation of care delivery, ushering in a post-COVID-19 future whereby digitally-enabled solutions can still bring healthcare 'closer' to the patient while maintaining a safe distance.
ABOUT MUFG'S HEALTHCARE BANKING PLATFORM
At MUFG, we offer clients across the entire healthcare spectrum — pharma, biotech, medtech, healthcare services — the best-in-class financial services and ready access to capital markets. Working with a global perspective, we provide an extensive network of financial professionals with deep industry knowledge in healthcare, providing flexible solutions and expertise wherever needed.
As one of the world's top ranked healthcare banks, MUFG provides flexible, high quality solutions through our global platform with US, European and Asian coverage out of New York, London and Singapore respectively.
In Asia Pacific, MUFG is ranked top ten in healthcare loan league tables for 2019. MUFG's APAC Healthcare team comprises experienced healthcare coverage professionals who are supported by experts from credit, research and products in corporate and investment banking.
APAC Healthcare Team
Sector Coverage and Acquisition Finance, APAC, Healthcare
Nikhil Gureja
Nikhil_Gureja@sg.mufg.jp
Aakash Swaroop
Aakash_Swaroop@sg.mufg.jp
Strategic Research Division, Healthcare
Avinash Lodha
avinash_lodha@sg.mufg.jp
MUFG Bank, Ltd. Disclaimer
These materials have been prepared by MUFG Bank, Ltd. ("the Bank") for information only. The Bank does not make any representation or warranty as to the accuracy, completeness or correctness of the information contained in this material.
Neither the information nor the opinion expressed herein constitute or are to be construed as an offer, solicitation, advice or recommendation to buy or sell deposits, securities, futures, options or any other financial or investment products.
All views herein (including any statements and forecasts) are subject to change without notice, its accuracy is not guaranteed; it may be incomplete or condensed and it may not contain all material information concerning the parties referred to in this material. None of the Bank, its head office, branches, subsidiaries and affiliates is under any obligation to update these materials.
The information contained herein has been obtained from sources the Bank believed to be reliable but the Bank does not make any representation or warranty nor accept any responsibility or liability as to its accuracy, timeliness, suitability, completeness or correctness. Therefore, the inclusion of the valuations, opinions, estimates, forecasts, ratings or risk assessments described in this material is not to be relied upon as a representation and / or warranty by the Bank. The Bank, its head office, branches, subsidiaries and affiliates and the information providers accept no liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect loss or damage of any kind arising out of the use of all or any part of these materials.
Historical performance does not guarantee future performance. Any forecast of performance is not necessarily indicative of future or likely performance of any product mentioned in this material.
The Bank retains copyright to this material and no part of this material may be reproduced or re-distributed without the written permission of the Bank and the Bank, its head office, branches, subsidiaries or affiliates accepts no liability whatsoever to any third parties resulting from such distribution or re-distribution.
The recipient should obtain separate independent professional, legal, financial, tax, investment or other advice, as appropriate.
UN News, "COVID-19: 'Unparalleled economic shock' threatens development hopes and gains", 10 June 2020
MUFG Major Related Companies
A member of MUFG, a global financial group


text:
Q: Adding versioning in image path Sprite I'm working on project that move in new version, when launch sprite became messy and need to be given versioning to check the latest addition only, sprite used now only sprite.png and sprite-2x.png.
But when i generate with gulp css and gulp cssmin(gulp-minify-css), version in sprite imagePath(sprite.png?v4=.1) disappear (in style.css just sprite.png without ?v=4.1).
This is my sprite config too create sprite.png
// Sprites

var gulp          = require('gulp'),
config        = require('../config').sprite,

spritesmith   = require('gulp.spritesmith'),
gulpif        = require('gulp-if'),
merge         = require('merge-stream');

gulp.task('sprite', function() {
// Normal
var sprite = gulp.src(config.image + '/icons/*.png')
.pipe(spritesmith({
  imgName: 'sprite.png',
  imgPath: '../img/sprite.png?v=4.1',
  cssName: '_helper.spritemap.scss'
}))
.pipe(gulpif('*.png', gulp.dest(config.image),
gulp.dest(config.sass)));
// Retina
var sprite2x = gulp.src(config.image + '/icons-2x/*.png')
.pipe(spritesmith({
  imgName: 'sprite-2x.png',
  imgPath: '../img/sprite-2x.png?v=4.1',
  cssName: '_helper.spritemap-2x.scss',
  cssVarMap: function(sprite) {
    sprite.name = sprite.name + '-2x';
  }
}))
.pipe(gulpif('*.png', gulp.dest(config.image),
gulp.dest(config.sass)));

Result in spritemap scss:
$icon-kustom-white-name: 'icon-kustom-white';
$icon-kustom-white-x: 449px;
$icon-kustom-white-y: 265px;
$icon-kustom-white-offset-x: -449px;
$icon-kustom-white-offset-y: -265px;
$icon-kustom-white-width: 18px;
$icon-kustom-white-height: 21px;
$icon-kustom-white-total-width: 493px;
$icon-kustom-white-total-height: 483px;
$icon-kustom-white-image: '../img/sprite.png?v=4.1';
$icon-kustom-white: (449px, 265px, -449px, -265px, 18px, 21px, 493px,
483px, '../img/sprite.png?v=4.1', 'icon-kustom-white', );

In Style.css
//Style.css
.example {
  background-image: url(../img/sprite.png); // Version missing (?v=4.1)
}

This is gulp css config
    // CSS task (compile SASS, autoprefixing, and combine media queries)
var gulp          = require('gulp'),
config        = require('../config').sass,

plumber       = require('gulp-plumber'),
changed       = require('gulp-changed'),
sass          = require('gulp-sass'),
postcss       = require('gulp-postcss'),
autoprefixer  = require('gulp-autoprefixer'),
mqpacker      = require('css-mqpacker'),
browserSync   = require('browser-sync'),
minifyCSS     = require('gulp-minify-css');
// filever       = require('gulp-version-filename');

gulp.task('css', function() {
return gulp.src(config.src)
.pipe(plumber({
  errorHandler: function(err) { console.log(err); this.emit('end') }
}))
.pipe(changed(config.dest, { extension: '.css' }))
.pipe(sass({
  imagePath: '../img',
  sourceComments: true,
  outputStyle: 'expanded'
}))
.pipe(postcss([ autoprefixer, mqpacker({sort: true}) ]))
.pipe(gulp.dest(config.dest))
.pipe(browserSync.reload({stream:true}));
});

gulp.task('cssmin', function() {
return gulp.src(config.src)
.pipe(plumber({
  errorHandler: function(err) { console.log(err); this.emit('end') }
}))
.pipe(sass({
  imagePath: '../img'
}))
.pipe(postcss([ autoprefixer, mqpacker({sort: true}) ]))
.pipe(minifyCSS())
.pipe(gulp.dest(config.dest));
});

Why is it lost?
Is there any other way?

A: You can easily do it with:

*

*unix-timestamp: https://www.npmjs.com/package/unix-timestamp

*gulp-md5: https://www.npmjs.com/package/gulp-md5

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Cavaliers Insider: Fatigued Ben Wallace ponders retirement, says 'passion' has dwindled
Published: Jun. 01, 2009, 12:46 a.m.
Brian Windhorst, The Plain Dealer
Chuck Crow/The Plain Dealer
Ben Wallace's 13-year NBA career includes a championship ring and multiple Defensive Player of the Year awards. But Wallace says injuries and fatigue are pushing him toward considering retirement.
INDEPENDENCE, Ohio --
is hurting. Mixed with the end of season blues, he's wondering if he's played his last game in the NBA.
The Cavaliers forward said Sunday he is considering retiring, even though there's one season and $14 million left on a contract that he seems surprisingly willing to walk away from. He is planning to sit down and discuss the issue with his family in the coming weeks.
The emotion stems from an injury-plagued season. Wallace was sidelined by a laceration on his arm suffered when he went through a car window playing football over the All-Star break, then suffered a broken leg and developed tendinitis in a knee that required painful shock wave therapy.
"I've got to sit down and talk with my family and see what I feel," Wallace said. "It isn't getting any easier for me. It is tough going out there every night with something hurting and not being able to give the effort you want to give. I love the game and respect the game too much to be going out there half-hearted."
Being downtrodden about how the leg injuries slowed his athleticism, the most important part of the four-time Defensive Player of the Year's game, is understandable. But his insistence that he would be willing to walk away from the last year of his four-year, $60 million deal originally signed with the Chicago Bulls in 2006 is somewhat shocking.
Wallace is guaranteed the money and has every right to come back and accept the checks under terms of the deal. More likely if he couldn't play, the Cavs would look to perhaps get insurance to cover some of the salary and look to trade him. He'd be a valuable commodity because of the expiring contract and teams looking to dump salaries covet them.
Tracy Boulian/The Plain Dealer
Ben Wallace said he felt good during his battles against Orlando's Dwight Howard. But "sometimes I wake up and my body is hurting so bad I don't know how I'm going to get through the day."
Actually, Wallace is perhaps the team's biggest trade asset in the coming season. So not only would refusing to take the checks be revolutionary, it would completely change the team's salary situation.
There's even a chance that such an unexpected move -- management had no idea this was coming from Wallace -- could put them below the salary cap line for this summer because Wally Szczerbiak and Eric Snow's contracts (about $21 million) come off the books as well and several players have just partially guaranteed contracts.
It doesn't seem possible, but Wallace sounded like he was feeling serious about it on Sunday.
"I tried to tell everybody before I signed this deal that for me it wasn't about the money," Wallace said. "I was never into it for the money and if it comes down to it to where I feel I can't be productive on the floor, I'm not going to come back and try to hold this team hostage because I have another year on this contract. That isn't me, I'm bigger than that."
There is also a possibility that Wallace could negotiate a buyout of his deal and take a percentage of what he's owed. But even in that case it would potentially make him a huge trade asset. A team could trade for him at the value of his contract ($14 million) and then save money by buying him out.
But all that is to be determined only if Wallace decides to go through with this decision.
The 34-year-old veteran of 14 years in the league, Wallace didn't start for the second half of the season, played his fewest games (56) in 10 years, averaged his fewest points (2.9) since he was a rookie in 1996-97 and the fewest rebounds (6.5) since '97-98.
"Nothing is final for me," Wallace said. "In this [Orlando] series I felt pretty good, I had some pep in my step. But how long will that last? Sometimes I wake up and my body is hurting so bad I don't know how I'm going to get through the day. Sometimes I wake up and feel just fine.
"It's tough. Without trying to point the finger at anybody, when I see my team struggling and I'm on the sideline watching, that is a tough pill for me to swallow. Over the last couple years some of the passion has been lost."
Varejao opting out: Anderson Varejao did not meet with the media Sunday, but a league source said that he intends to opt out of the final year of his contract and become an unrestricted free agent on July 1. This option was part of three-year offer sheet Varejao signed with the Charlotte Bobcats that the Cavs matched in 2007.
Varejao will likely leave $6.2 million on the table coming off a season in which he set career highs in starts (42), points (8.6) and field goal percentage (.536).
The Cavs retain his rights so they can exceed the salary cap to sign him. But unlike 2007, they will not be able to automatically match an offer such as the one the Bobcats extended. Varejao has said he wants to remain with the team and the Cavs are believed to be interested in bringing him back -- if they can come to terms.
Other matters: Staying with his plan from before the season, Zydrunas Ilgauskas said he does not plan on opting out of his contract and will play out the final season at $11.5 million next year. "There are no greener pastures for me," he said. "I've been a Cavalier and I'll always be a Cavalier."... Szczerbiak will be an unrestricted free agent for the first time in his career after completing a six-year, $63 million deal signed in 2002 with Minnesota. ... Joe Smith is also an unrestricted free agent and said he'd like to come back to the Cavs next season. ... Tarence Kinsey ($855,000), Darnell Jackson ($736,000) and Jawad Williams ($736,000) are all signed for next season but their deals are not guaranteed.