Ditch #complicated #remdesivir #Patent2017 and focus on #GS441524 #Simpler #Safer #ancestor #Patent2009?

Thursday, 14 May, 2020

The following news is highly technical #Chemical #Pharmaceutical #Covid19 science. If I may share with you my trick and general approach to learning: I often try to read something and understand it as much as I can KNOWING I don’t know a LOT. Knowing what questions to ask and what we don’t know is part way to understanding/”some minor progress in understanding” new cutting edge science. To quote a Quote I LOVE by the Nobel Economist Ronald Coase when he was 100 years old, “You don’t know what you can learn until you try to learn.”

Have a read of May 14, 2020, Stat News, “Gilead should ditch remdesivir and focus on its simpler and safer ancestor” By Victoria C. Yan and Florian L. Muller  [HT Gabriel @gmleunghku for his RT this morning, I saw the STAT News op-ed but his RT put it more on my radar]

Here is an excerpt from //Opinion: Gilead has another antiviral that’s easier to make and safer to use than remdesivir. Why isn’t it giving that drug any attention? The world can only hope it isn’t for the sake of protecting its intellectual property.//

“The attractive profile of GS-441524 from both manufacturing and clinical perspectives raises this question: Why hasn’t Gilead opted to advance this compound to the clinic? We would be remiss for not mentioning patents, and thus profits. The first patent on GS-441524 was issued in 2009, while the first patent for remdesivir was issued in 2017.

We aren’t the only ones questioning Gilead’s strategy. We have spoken with a number of chemists, biochemists, veterinarians, and others who are also surprised that GS-441524 has remained out of the spotlight. Veterinarians we spoke to have noted that the strong antiviral activity of GS-441524 has resulted in a “miraculous turn of events” for cats infected with feline coronavirus, which was once considered a death sentence.

Given GS-441524’s optimal properties, we — along with the millions of people awaiting an effective treatment for Covid-19 — are left to wonder why Gilead isn’t giving it the same attention it is giving remdesivir. The world can only hope it isn’t for the sake of protecting its intellectual property.”

[NOTE: Do NOT take experts’ words blindly but let them highlight potentially interesting questions or where cutting edge science is]

P,S, In the 90s, I, for no good reasons that I can remember and may be I had too much money to waste/spend, subscribed to The New England Journal of Medicine for one full year! May be it was to broaden my understanding of medical science, better armed myself to read medical research, or simply to reduce my fear of reading research papers that I really know very little! I particular enjoy, if I remember right, reading the concluding paragraphs of many research papers talking about what’s “NEXT” for the researchers, what were their “unknowns”!

Gilead should ditch remdesivir and focus on its simpler and safer ancestor - pix

Gilead should ditch remdesivir and focus on its simpler and safer ancestor – pix


In the quest to build a better battery

Friday, 14 December, 2018

I’ve always love and curious about battery technologies. CBC News has this interesting news article, “In the quest to build a better battery, a Canadian is energizing the field“. Will see how things pan out in the coming years with Canadian Don Sadoway, a professor of materials chemistry at MIT. (Prof. Sadoway “did both his undergraduate and graduate studies at the University of Toronto, receiving his PhD in 1977”.)

2012 Ted Talk Donald Sadoway: The missing link to renewable energy

2015 World Economic Forum, Unlocking Renewables | Donald Sadoway


Do you really own what you bought? New insights from Supreme Court decision Impression Products vs. Lexmark International

Thursday, 1 June, 2017

Supreme Court decision PDF file: Impression Products vs. Lexmark International

Wired, “The Supreme Court Just Bolstered Your Right to Repair Stuff

Impression Products vs. Lexmark International hinged on two points: Did Impression infringe upon Lexmark’s patents by (1) reselling cartridges in the United States when Lexmark explicitly prohibited reuse and resale, and (2) importing without authorization cartridges Lexmark sold abroad. Various courts split on these questions, and everyone from the AARP and Huawei to Costco and the Auto Care Association weighed in when the case finally reached the Supreme Court.

Why all the fuss? Because this wasn’t really about printer toner. It was about your ownership rights, and whether a patent holder can dictate how you repair, modify, or reuse something you’ve purchased. “This case raises important questions about the reach of American patent law and how much control a manufacturer can exert after its products have been lawfully sold,” the editorial board of The New York Times wrote in 2015. “Taken to their logical conclusion, Lexmark’s arguments would mean that producers could use patent law to dictate how things like computers, printers, and other patented goods are used, changed, or resold and place restrictions on international trade.”

Consider this: Countless people hack their Keurig machines to brew “unauthorized” coffee brands. Can Keurig sue them? Could Apple or Samsung stipulate that you can’t resell their products on Craigslist or eBay? Could John Deere claim that a repair tech is infringing upon its patent rights by repairing a broken combine without permission? Consumer rights advocates at the EFF and Public Knowledge worried that a ruling in Lexmark’s favor would “jeopardize independent product refurbishers and repair services”.”


Calgary ParkPlus multi-million lawsuit and ownership settlement – An exclusive inside look at a “key” piece of evidence

Tuesday, 9 April, 2013

ParkPlus settlement with Dale Fraser, former CPA General Manager

Background of the “key” piece of evidence

Now that Calgary Parking Authority (CPA) has settled the Parkplus parking management system ownership dispute and disclosed some key information (see endnotes), this reporter feels comfortable in sharing an exclusive inside look at one piece of evidence against Mr. Dale Fraser’s ownership claim without risking harm to the city and CPA’s legal case.

This key piece of evidence (you can judge for yourself to see if you agree it is “key” or not) was an August 2008 video interview with Mr. Dale Fraser conducted by this reporter. In the extensive August 2008 interview (where Alderman Dale Hodges was also interviewed), a variety of ParkPlus topics (including patents) were discussed. This video evidence was almost “lost” at one point as it was originally uploaded and stored on the now discontinued Google Video service!

Fortunately, after some help from a Google engineer friend, the August 2008 interview was recovered along with a few hundred uploaded videos. The video interview was useful enough that Calgary Parking Authority licensed it to help its case which is why I’m claiming this as an “exclusive inside look“.

Unlike the parties involved in the legal settlement (Calgary Parking Authority, City of Calgary, Mr. Dale Fraser, and Mr. Allan Bazar), I am an independent reporter and not bound by any confidentiality agreement.

An exclusive inside look at a key piece of evidence

In the August 2008 interview, former Calgary Parking Authority General Manager Mr. Dale Fraser told this reporter,

”Calgary Parking Authority did create the proprietary approach to this new parking system. And we [CPA] do have a patent-pending on this approach at this time.”

During the 30+ minutes interview, at NO point did Mr. Fraser leave this reporter with the impression the pending Canada/US ParkPlus patent was his (or his & Mr. Allan Bazar’s) personal invention or intellectual property. In fact, Mr. Fraser seemed to me quite clear in explaining the system was developed by MTS Allstream with the funds/resources from Calgary Parking Authority.

As suggested in “The Patents” section in the 2008 August report “ParkPlus by Calgary Parking Authority – Reimagining the Wheels“,

US patent is one of the most important ones to apply for, simply because the US is one of the largest markets and it has a reasonably strong patent protection regime.

Here is my 2008 interview video (pay attention to time code ~3:40 to ~3:50).

[Please note that the interview is protected by copyright. License and use requests (including for press and media) are to be submitted via email and will be handled promptly.]

This article is cross-posted by me to examiner.

Endnotes: Although the settlement agreement has confidentiality clauses, the parties agree to disclose the following information (emphasis added) and I quote from the Media Release – ParkPlus Settlement – April 2013,

(1) The Defendants, Dale Fraser, Allan Bazar and 1707626 Alberta Ltd., (now Intelli-Park Corporation) acknowledge that the City of Calgary and CPA are the exclusive owners of the ParkPlus SystemTM and that none of the Defendants has any right, title or interest whatsoever in the ParkPlus SystemTM;
(2) While the ParkPlus SystemTM is valuable and all necessary consideration for settlement is acknowledged, there is no payment by the City of Calgary or CPA of any money whatsoever to any of the Defendants or any other person;
(3) The claims and counterclaims in the action will be wholly discontinued without costs; and
(4) The parties release each other from all claims and counterclaims in the action including any claims relating to the ParkPlus SystemTM or the employment of Dale Fraser and Allan Bazar with the City of Calgary and CPA.


Viagra free-for-all: Viagra patent deemed impotent by Supreme Court of Canada

Thursday, 8 November, 2012

In a ground breaking 7-0 unanimous decision “Teva Canada Ltd. v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2012 SCC 60″ today, Supreme Court of Canada has declared Pfizer’s Viagra patent void in Canada with serious sales/financial implications. Quoting Justice LeBel (emphasis added),

Patent 2,163,446 is void.

The patent application did not satisfy the disclosure requirements set out in the Patent Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P‑4 (“Act”).  The patent system is based on a “bargain”: the inventor is granted exclusive rights in a new and useful invention for a limited period in exchange for disclosure of the invention so that society can benefit from this knowledge.  Sufficiency of disclosure lies at the very heart of the patent system, so adequate disclosure in the specification is a precondition for the granting of a patent.

According to Globe & Mail, “Pfizer Canada made about $80-million last year from sales of Viagra.” Company doesn’t have to apply for patents and disclose the secrets of their inventions. Like Coke just keeps its formula as a trade secret. But if a company wants to get patents, the disclosure requirements are no joking matter and can mean billions as in this case.

Lets be clear on one thing, the declaration of Pfizer’s Viagra patent void doesn’t mean you get Viagra free as some men wish to! It does mean the patent protection afforded Pfizer exclusive right is now gone, and Canadian users of Viagra can expect cheaper generic version of Viagra type drugs to be available soon. In fact, according to CBC News,

The unanimous decision opens the door for Teva to introduce a generic version of Viagra. By the afternoon on Thursday, Teva had already moved to do just that, posting a message on its website, announcing the creation of Novo-Sildenafil and noting the product is available via prescription.

P.S. I am not a lawyer in Canada or U.S. so you should check with expert first. My understanding is that under the U.S. patent and trademark system, the “disclosure requirement” is better know as “2165 The Best Mode Requirement (linked to USPTO)” which I relied heavily in a 2006 patent review I did on an entrepreneur’s patent application within an episode of CBC award-winning hit TV show Dragons’ Den!

NOTE: This article is cross-posted by me at examiner.com


Two Google lawyers reflect on Oracle v. Google

Monday, 11 June, 2012

Great interviews re “Oracle v. Google” patent and copyright trail with two Google attorneys: general counsel Kent Walker, and litigation counsel Renny Hwang. Highly recommended. [HT +Lauren Weinstein]


Patent Wars Are “Pain in the Ass,” Says Apple CEO Tim Cook (Video)

Tuesday, 29 May, 2012

Setting aside my love/hate of Apple, have a watch of Apple CEO Tim Cook at AllThingsD.

Kara Swisher asks about the patent wars (video). “Is it a problem for innovation?”

Cook says “Well, it is a pain in the ass. Is it a problem for innovation?” Then Cook thought and waited for 7 long seconds before continuing, “From our point of view, it is important for Apple not be the developer for the world,”Do you think Tim Cook is right or he overstates Apple’s case?


NanoTech Security – Plasmonics as an anti-counterfeiting measure for banknotes and pharmaceuticals

Friday, 23 December, 2011

NanoTech Security anti-counterfeiting measure - pix 01NanoTech Security anti-counterfeiting measure - pix 04

I came across NanoTech Security‘s (a Surrey, B.C. based company) interesting anti-counterfeiting measure for banknotes or pharmaceuticals in this Fast Company article “A Never Before Seen Optical Trick Creates Ultra-Secure Cash“. [HT Bruce Schneier]

Imagine a bill covered with microscopic holes that make it glow slightly in the light. It’s tech borrowed from a butterfly, and it may soon be foiling counterfeiters around the world.

If all goes as planned, the world’s supply of cash will soon be secured with a nano-scale optical defense that is as secure as it is visually impressive. […]

The technology was inspired by the Blue Morpho butterfly, whose brilliant blue coloration comes not from pigment but the way that tiny holes in its scales reflect light. But the tech, called Nano-Optic Technology for Enhanced Security (NOtES), is different from the Morpho butterfly’s wings, and pretty much all other bio-inspired reflective optical technologies, in that it is both extraordinarily thin and functions even in dim light.

NOtES exploits an obscure area of physics to accomplish its bright and sharp display, known as plasmonic (or via Wikipedia). Light waves interact with the array of nano-scale holes on a NOtES display–which are typically 100-200 nanometers in diameter–in a way that creates what are called “surface plasmons.” In the words of the company, this means light “[collects] on the films surface and creates higher than expected optical outputs by creating an electromagnetic field, called surface plasmonic resonance.”

If you are interested in digging deeper into the technical details, have a read of “US patent 2010/0271174 – Security document with electroactive polymer power source and nano-optical display” by I|D|ME‘s Chief Scientific Officier Bozena Kaminska (a list of Bozena’s US Patent) and Chief Technology Officier Clinton K. Landrock (a list of Clint’s US Patent) (by the way, here is Clint’s Twitter).

Here are two informative videos from NanoTech Security so you can see how cool it is.

NOtES – An Introduction

NTS NOtES Master Shim and Embossed Banknote Grade Polypropolyene

I am a tech geek so I love cool technologies but I am also realistic as I understand there are many real world requirements and challenges before this or any other advanced technologies are accepted and adopted.

By the way, Bank of Canada is in the process of launching the 2011 series of polymer banknotes with technologies by Securency International and BoC and printed in Canada by Note Printing Australia (NPA is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia). So far, BoC has launched the new polymer $100 banknotes in Nov 2011, and will launch the $50 in March 2012, the widely circulated $20 in Fall 2012. And $10 and $5 before the end of 2013. To deter counterfeiting of banknotes, BoC plans to update its banknotes design faster than before (in 8 years time).

NanoTech Security anti-counterfeiting measure - pix 02

NanoTech Security anti-counterfeiting measure - pix 03

Further links/readings:

* Gizmodo article “The Money of the Future Will Shine Like Crazy”

* NanoTech Security (NTS) is a TSX-Venture listed company and you can download its financial & regulatory filings from the Canadian Securities Administrators SEDAR database by searching for “NanoTech Security Corp“. For some reason, I could only find annual reports from 2003 – 2008. I am surprised I couldn’t find annual reports for 2009 and 2010 in the SEDAR database. What happened to these two reports?

P.S. For the record, here is some not so positive news about Securency International (July 1st, 2011 press release) and Reserve Bank of Australia & NPA (July 1st, 2011 press release).


The Great Mobile Patent War – Are your popcorn ready?

Thursday, 8 September, 2011

Bloomberg, Sept 7, 2011, “Google Hands HTC Patents to Use Against Apple

“HTC Corp. (2498), Asia’s second-biggest smartphone maker, is using nine patents bought from Google Inc. (GOOG) last week to pursue new infringement claims against Apple Inc.

Google had taken ownership of the patents less than a year ago, with four of the patents originating from Motorola Inc., three from Openwave Systems Inc. and two from Palm Inc., according to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records. Jim Prosser, a spokesman for Mountain View, California-based Google, wouldn’t discuss reasons for the nine transfers to HTC.

HTC now has more ammunition in its fight to fend off multiple patent-infringement claims lodged by Apple that contend phones running Google’s Android operating system copy the iPhone. Google’s involvement in aiding HTC represents a new front in an industrywide dispute over smartphone technology that has also ensnared Android customers Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co.”

From ZDNet, Sept 8, 2011, “Mobile patent litigation: A game with too many playing cards – Summary: Patent litigation in the mobile space is out of control. It has become a game with too many playing cards for anyone to win.

From Fortune, Sept 8, 2011 “Google gets its hands dirty – Android’s purveyor crossed a line when it sold arms to be used against Apple

P.S. I tried, without success I have to say, to get a blog friend to share his insight re this patent war, he wisely declined and told me it would be more fun to watch from the sidelines!


Colourful and durable carbon fiber devices

Thursday, 1 September, 2011

Interesting innovation from Apple.

Apple Insider, “Apple interested in creating colorful, durable carbon fiber devices

US Patent Application, published Sept 1, 2011, 20110210476, “Composite Laminate Having An Improved Cosmetic Surface And Method Of Making Same”


“New” Weapon in Apple-Samsung Patent War – Stanley Kubrick’s 2001

Thursday, 25 August, 2011

Over the years, I have actually tagged quite a few of my articles with the keyword “patent” and I am no fan of patent war. So I am happy to read “Samsung says Apple lifted iPad from Kubrick’s 2001“. Apparently Samsung is trying to use Stanley Kubrick‘s 2001, in particular the following YouTube video as an example of prior art!


Lytro Picture Revolution – In its founder and CEO Ren Ng’s words

Friday, 19 August, 2011

Highly recommend you read this dpreview article, “Lytro’s Ren Ng sheds some light on the company’s ambitions“. Here is an excerpt,

“Lytro’s announcement that it will be launching a plenoptic ‘light field’ camera that allows images to be re-focused after they’ve been taken, was met with equal amounts of interest and skepticism. Interested to find out more, we spoke to the company’s founder and CEO, Ren Ng, to hear just what he has planned and how far towards a product the company has got.”

***

Sept 7, 2011 update: Reuters video interview, “California company brings sharper focus to photography

Economist, “Cameras get cleverer – Consumer electronics: New approaches to photography treat it as a branch of computing as well as optics, making possible a range of new tricks


Leading Thinker Cory Doctorow’s Keynote Address at SIGGRAPH 2011

Saturday, 13 August, 2011

The following is one of Cory Doctorow‘s best speech. Cory is an editor of Boing Boing and one of the leading thinkers about Copyright. [HT my friend +Jan Rubak]

Leading Thinker Cory Doctorow’s Keynote Address at SIGGRAPH 2011

P.S. I can’t stop smiling when he starts talking, at ~12:49, about Canadian Heritage Minister [Twitter @JamesMoore_org].

Personal observation: Minister Moore believes in political debate and listening to citizen’s views as long as he can block you. See Twitter @no_mpjamesmoore


Consortium of Nortel patents purchasers: How much they paid and what they get (according to anonymous internal sources)

Monday, 4 July, 2011

After writing about Nortel gets $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents and patent applications, it is good to read some details. According to internal sources with promised anonymity by “I, Cringely” (emphasis added)

“Here’s the consortium participation as I understand it. RIM and Ericsson together put up $1.1 billion with Ericsson getting a fully paid-up license to the portfolio while RIM, as a Canadian company like Nortel, gets a paid-up license plus possibly some carry forward operating losses from Nortel, which has plenty of such losses to spare. For RIM the deal might actually have a net zero cost after tax savings, which the Canadian business press hasn’t yet figured out.

Microsoft and Sony put up another $1 billion.

There is a reportedly a side deal for about $400 million with EMC that has the storage company walking with sole ownership of an unspecified subset of the Nortel patents.

Finally Apple put up $2 billion for outright ownership of Nortel’s Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android.

At the end of the day this deal isn’t about royalties. It is about trying to kill Android.”

Bob has been in the industry for a long time, so there are probably some elements of truth in his report and worth considering. [HT Digital Trends]


Nortel gets $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents and patent applications

Sunday, 3 July, 2011

I love patents. I love auctions (the strategies and its economic implications, etc). So I will try to spend some time to share my thoughts about the news of Nortel 6,000 patents and patent applications sold for $4.5 billion.

Here is some fun facts but more interestingly some details of the auction process itself. Note that the winning group of companies (see Apple, Microsoft, RIM) are not exactly friends, to put it diplomatically,

“A group of six companies — Apple, Microsoft, RIM, EMC, Ericsson and Sony — won the auction of 6,000 Nortel patents and patent applications with a $4.5 billion bid.”

Here is EuroNews report of the news.


Microsoft, defeated by Toronto i4i at US Supreme Court, ordered to pay $290 million for patent infringement

Thursday, 9 June, 2011

Microsoft, defeated by Toronto i4i at US Supreme Court, ordered to pay $290 million for patent infringement. See full US Supreme Court decision.

See my previous Microsoft v. i4i articles here (2011), here (2011), and here (2009).


Apple to Lodsys: cease and desist from any further threats

Monday, 23 May, 2011

MacWorld, “Full text: Apple Legal’s letter to Lodsys

MacWorld, “Apple to Lodsys: ‘App makers are protected by [our] license

See the previous entry “iOS developers face patent threats” for some background info.


iOS developers face patent threats

Monday, 23 May, 2011

Apple must defend developers against patent threats, says EFF – Public silence from Cupertino highlights vulnerability of iOS developers, says Julie Samuels” Guardian, (emphasis added)

Apple has been publicly silent since the legal threats were first publicised by worried developers earlier in May – likely less a sign of a lack of concern on its part, and more a sign that its lawyers are scrutinising the threats and the patent that forms their basis.

The EFF is not impressed, though. “Apple’s failure to defend these developers is troubling and highlights at least two larger problems: patent trolls and developers’ vulnerability when harassing and counter-productive patent litigation comes around,” writes Samuels, who links this into a wider trend of small developers without the resources to defend a patent infringement lawsuit being targeted.

What’s different here, however, is that Apple provides this functionality to its developers and requires that they use it. Apple itself is protected from liability – Apple took a licence from Lodsys’ predecessor to use this very patent (which was likely part of a larger blanket licence). And the apparently one-sided Apple-developer agreement does not require that Apple indemnify developers from suits based on technology that Apple provides.

The importance of in-app payments to the iOS platform – something likely to be repeated on Android, BlackBerry and Windows Phone in the months ahead – cannot be overstated.


Fired CPA manager Dale Fraser said, “Calgary Parking Authority did create the proprietary approach to this new parking system. And we [CPA] do have a patent-pending on this approach …” in 2008 interview

Saturday, 21 May, 2011

Fired Calgary Parking Authority manager Dale Fraser in an 2008 interview with Kempton Lam

Newly termindated CPA manager Dale Fraser told me, “Calgary Parking Authority did create the proprietary approach to this new parking system. And we [CPA] do have a patent-pending on this approach at this time.” in an August 2008 interview.

During the 30+ minutes interview, at NO point did Mr. Fraser leave this reporter with the impression the pending Canada/US ParkPlus patent was his (or his & Mr. Allan Bazar’s) personal invention or intellectual property. In fact, Mr. Fraser seemed to me quite clear in explaining the system was developed by MTS Allstream with the funds/resources from Calgary Parking Authority.

As stated in “The Patents” section in my 2008 August report “ParkPlus by Calgary Parking Authority – Reimagining the Wheels“, I suggested “US patent is one of the most important one to apply for, simply because US is one of the largest market and it has a reasonably strong patent protection regime.“.

For those that enjoy reading technical patent, have a read of Mr. Dale Fraser and Mr. Allan Bazar’s US patent application 20100191584.

For your reference, here is my 2008 interview video (pay attention to time code ~3:40 to ~3:50). [Please note that the interview is protected by copyright. License and use requests (including for press and media) are to be submitted via email and will be handled promptly.]


Summary of Microsoft v. i4i Oral Argument @ US Supreme Court

Monday, 18 April, 2011

Check out Patently O’s “Summary of Microsoft v. i4i Oral Argument“‘ See a rough US Supreme Court transcript of this case. [HT Patently O]

See also National Post, “Chairman of i4i confident Microsoft defeated

““We think it went tremendously well,” he [Loudon Owen, chairman of Toronto based i4i] said in a telephone interview after leaving the Washington courtroom. “I would be very very surprised if it wasn’t a favourable ruling for us.””

Reuters, “Top court hears Microsoft appeal on i4i patent

CNet, “Supreme Court queries Microsoft on patent law

“Just as Microsoft lawyer Thomas Hungar began presenting its arguments, Justices Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Elena Kagen pressed him on the legal precedent in a 1934 case that seemed to mandate using a higher evidentiary standard.

“The language of that opinion is extremely broad,” Kagan said, according to a transcript. “And if you read that opinion, no one would gather from that opinion the kinds of limits that you’re suggesting on it.

Ginsburg, too, seemed to read the earlier ruling as requiring a higher standard of evidence than Microsoft proposes.

“An infringer who assails the validity of a patent…bears a heavy burden of persuasion and fails unless his evidence has more than a dubious preponderance,” Ginsburg said.”


<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: