The Andhra Journal of Industrial News
(An International Electronic Digest Published from the United States of America)
(dedicated to Andhra, My Mother's Homeland)

Chief Editor: Prof. Sreenivasarao Vepachedu
(Click here to subscribe to this free e-journal)

To join The Indian American Chemical Society (TIACS), please send an email to:

Issue 48

5109 Kali Era, Sarvajit Year, Phalguna month
2065 Vikramarka Era, Sarvajit Year, Phalguna month
1929 Salivahana Era
Sarvajit Year, Phalguna month
 2008 AD, March





Vegetarian Links





More Links



Poor Judgment of an IP Attorney
Citing the “poor judgment” of its employees in helping to create a “regrettable situation,” Cisco Systems Inc. has prohibited workers from anonymously blogging about company affairs after one of its in-house intellectual property attorneys, Cisco IP Director Rick Frenkel, was outed as the “patent troll tracker” blogger. Cisco is a major part of the “Coalition for Patent Fairness” that lobbies for weaker patent rights that will eventually move innovation out of US and destroy American supremacy in the world.

Indian Court Favors Patent Breaker
Cipla received a boost when the High Court of Delhi reportedly refused to intercept the Indian generics maker's efforts to manufacture and market F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.'s cancer drug Tarceva without a compulsory license.

Singulair and Suicide Risk
The Food and Drug Administration announced this week that it was investigating a possible link between the allergy drug Singulair and suicide. Manufacturer Merck & Co. had updated the medication's label four times in the past year to warn of reported tremors, anxiety, depression and suicidal behavior in some patients, the Associated Press reports. The FDA is reviewing the reports of mood changes and suicidal behavior with the drug.

Continuation-in-Part after Restriction
35 USC 121 blocks the use of a parent application “as a reference … against a divisional application” if the divisional was the result of a restriction requirement.  One of the Pfizer patents (the ‘068) challeged by Teva is a continuation-in-part (CIP) filed after a restriction requirement. On appeal, the CAFC confirmed that Section 121 does not apply to CIPs: “a divisional application contains an identical disclosure to its parent application, but a CIP introduces new matter. . . . [T]he protection afforded by section 121 . . . is limited to divisional applications.”  Thus, the parent application of a CIP will potentially be used for an obviousness-type double patenting rejection. Here, the CAFC held that the CIP claims were indeed obvious when compared to the parent application.

Pharmaceutical Industry Continues to Struggle

About 1,200 U.S. sales representatives at Wyeth have been told their positions are being eliminated as of Monday, the drug maker said. The move is part of a major companywide program, announced nine weeks ago, to cut jobs and other costs and redesign the business of Madison, N.J.-based Wyeth, which is struggling with increased competition and fewer new drugs, like most pharmaceutical companies.

US Patent System
Although the patent system provides positive incentives in some industries like pharmaceuticals, some think that it provides negative incentives in most industries. Further, the performance has deteriorated over time, say James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer: Now the proposed changes will make patenting in the US expensive and difficult. 

Former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) commissioners Gerald Mossinghoff and Stephen Kunin issued a 35-page position paper entitled "The Need for Consensus on Patent Reform." Generally, Mossinghoff and Kunin support many provisions of the Act but call for significant revisions before adoption. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) released a report entitled "Proposed Patent Reform Legislation: Limitations of Empirical Data Used to Inform the Public Policy Debate." BIO’s report alleges that the three papers most frequently cited as demonstrating a need for patent reform (by the Federal Trade Commission, the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council) are not actually based on empirical data, but instead rely largely on "conjecture, anecdotes and individual publicized cases."  The U.S. Department of Commerce Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs sent a letter to Senator Leahy. Among other proposed reforms, the administration opposes the patent damages section of the bill, stating that it does not believe it is necessary to impose a statutory directive to be "rigidly" applied by courts in calculating damages. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes the proposed elimination of re-examination proceedings in light of its efforts challenging overbroad patents through its "Patent Busting Project." The Patent Office Professional Association  (POPA) and 13 other labor unions have urged the Senate to oppose the act in its current form, arguing that the act will undermine U.S. competitiveness. American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is opposing mandatory search and patentability analysis.


We Are Asking You to Contact Your Senators Today to Oppose Mandatory Search and Patentability Analysis.

Based on our latest information, the US Senate is expected to consider its patent reform bill, S. 1145, in the weeks immediately following its return on March 31st. Further, we understand that the Senate and House Judiciary Committees are working to ensure that the bill that goes to the Senate floor will sufficiently reflect the views of the House in the hope of avoiding a conference on the bill. If successful, this would mean that any Senate-passed bill would simply be approved by the House and sent to the President. This increases the importance of correcting the bill before its passage.

I am writing to bring to your attention a provision that has not garnered the same level of debate and criticism as some of the other, higher profile issues. The provision in question is Section 11 concerning " Applicant Quality Submissions" or "AQS." This provision, which the PTO is pushing very hard, mandates that the Director require all applicants to submit a search report and analysis relevant to patentability with every application. If enacted, the AQS requirement would dramatically impact all patent applicants by significantly increasing the cost of patent prosecution and by increasing their exposure to charges of inequitable conduct.

AIPLA has written to the Senate leadership and visited numerous Senate offices to express its strong opposition to this provision. We have pointed out that such a requirement would significantly increase the cost of filing applications (as much as three times based on the AIPLA Economic Survey) and substantially increase the likelihood of later inequitable conduct charges given the failure of S. 1145 to adequately constrain this defense.

AIPLA continues to work with the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform to inform Members of the Senate and their staffs about the various deficiencies in S. 1145. The Coalition has offered specific recommendations to improve the following provisions in the bill: damages, post-grant review, inequitable conduct, venue, best mode, interlocutory appeals, first-inventor-to-file, and AQS. In addition, the Coalition has expressed strong support for the language in the bill that would guarantee that the PTO would retain all of its fee revenues, thereby ending diversion. In view of the PTO's continuing advocacy for a mandatory search and patentability analysis provision, however, we are concerned that it may be retained in the bill in one form or another - even though we have found no major user group that supports it - and even though patent examiners, speaking through the Patent Office Professional Association, oppose it.

While we will continue to urge deletion of the AQS provision from S. 1145 in our visits to Senate offices, we are reaching out to you because we believe that the Senate must hear from the AIPLA membership on the AQS provision if we have any chance of blunting the PTO's push for its inclusion in S. 1145. We therefore ask that you call or send a letter to your Senators, using the attached materials as a starting point, to urge them to strike the Applicant Quality Submission provision from the bill.

To facilitate this action, I am attaching:
1. Talking points for your use in calling your Senators' offices,
2. A draft letter for your use as a starting point for your facsimile or email letter to your Senators, and
3. Contact information for all Senators, including telephone numbers, fax numbers, and the web-email link. (I have not included the postal addresses because the screening of regular mail can significantly delay its delivery.)

Please take the time to reach out to your Senators this week. Your voice counts - let it be heard!

Thank you for your support.

Michael K. Kirk, Executive Director, AIPLA


When you call, ask for the staff person who handles the patent reform bill, S. 1145. Explain the reasons for your interest and express your point of view. You may find the following talking points useful:
  • While I favor a number of the reforms in S. 1145, I ask that it be opposed in its current form.
  •  I am certain that you have heard of the major failings of S. 1145 dealing with issues such as damages, post-grant review, and lack of meaningful inequitable conduct reform.
  • I want to address another very problematic provision in S. 1145 that has not received the attention it deserves.
  • This provision, Section 11, entitled "Applicant Quality Submissions," would mandate that every patent application be accompanied by:
  • a search report,
  • an analysis explaining why the invention is patentable over the prior art found, and
  • any other information relevant to patentability that the Director determines necessary.
  • This mandatory search and patentability analysis requirement could triple the cost of obtaining a patent.
  • Moreover, they are unnecessary - patent applicant currently has a duty to disclose to the PTO all information known to be material to patentability, including all material information which is uniquely in the possession of the patent applicant.
  • The disclosure of this information, the information uncovered in the search conducted by patent examiners, and the provision in S. 1145 allowing the public to submit information to examiners ensure that examiners will have all the information needed to examine and issue quality patents.
  • In addition, it would subject successful patent applicants to an open-ended risk of charges of "inequitable conduct."
  • Infringers could dissect such reports and analyses and assert that the patent applicant failed to comply because some allegedly material reference was not cited or because some obscure passage in a cited reference was not properly explained.
  • The result could be that a patent owner would be precluded from enforcing a perfectly valid patent.
  • The Section 11 mandatory search and patentability analysis requirement should be deleted from the bill.


March ___, 2008

The Honorable ___________
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator________:

I am writing to voice my strong concerns regarding S. 1145, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. While a number of the reforms in S. 1145 would improve the patent system, I ask that you oppose the bill in its current form unless serious problems in several provisions, most notably the evisceration of patent infringement damages, are corrected.

I would like, however, to single out a particularly troubling provision that has not received the attention it deserves because of the concern about the high-profile problems in S. 1145 such as damages. Section 11 of S. 1145 would add a new section to the patent law mandating the PTO Director to require applicants to submit search reports and patentability analyses with each patent application. If adopted, this requirement would significantly increase the cost of filing patent applications (possibly tripling the cost). This added cost would have a damaging impact on the ability of universities, large and small businesses and all but a very few independent inventors (so-called "micro entities") to patent their inventions to protect them against foreign competitors.

Additionally, Section 11's requirement would significantly increase the risk to patent owners of later charges of so-called "inequitable conduct" given the failure of S. 1145 to adequately constrain this defense. If any resulting patent were later asserted against an infringer, the search and patentability analysis would be available for the infringer to dissect and assert that, as to the scope of the search or for isolated passages, the patent applicant failed to fulfill his or her responsibility to fully identify and/or disclose the content of the prior art or properly explain its relevance. This risk would be increased even if S. 1145 curtailed the doctrine of inequitable conduct, but the bill unfortunately currently contains no effective constraints on this doctrine, making the searches and analyses mandated by Section 11 of the bill potentially fatal for patentees' rights.

Patent applicants currently have a duty to disclose to the PTO all information known to be material to patentability. This obligation requires disclosure of all information which might be uniquely in the possession of the patent applicant. This information, combined with the search conducted by patent examiners and the provision in S. 1145 allowing the public to submit information to examiners, ensures that examiners will have all the information needed to examine and issue quality patents.

There appears to be no major user group that supports the AQS requirement of Section 11 of the bill. Most significantly, the Office's own patent examiners, speaking through the Patent Office Professional Association, also strongly oppose it. Because the costs and risks associated with the AQS requirement far outweigh its potential benefit, Section 11 should be deleted from S. 1145.

Thank you for your consideration. I am counting on your support.



March 2008


Senator Jeff Sessions
Phone: 202-224-4124
Fax: 202-224-3149
Email: Web Form:

Senator Richard C. Shelby
Phone: 202-224-5744
Fax: 202-224-3416
Email: E-mail:


Senator Lisa Murkowski
Phone: 202-224-6665
Fax: 202-224-5301
Email: Web Form:

Senator Ted Stevens
Phone: 202-224-3004
Fax: 202-224-2354
Email: Web Form:


Senator Jon Kyl
Phone: 202-224-4521
Fax: 202-224-2207
Email: Web Form:

Senator John McCain
Phone: 202-224-2235
Fax: 202-228-2862
Email: Web Form:


Senator Blanche L. Lincoln
Phone: 202-224-4843
Fax: 202-228-1371
Email: Web Form:

Senator Mark Pryor
Phone: 202-224-2353
Fax: 202-228-0908
Email: Web Form:


Senator Barbara Boxer
Phone: 202-224-3553
Fax: 202-224-0454
Email: Web Form:

Senator Dianne Feinstein
Phone: 202-224-3841
Fax: 202-228-3954
Email: Web Form:


Senator Wayne Allard
Phone: 202-224-5941
Fax: 202-224-6471
Email: Web Form:

Senator Ken Salazar
Phone: 202-224-5852
Fax: 202-228-5036
Email: Web Form:


Senator Christopher J. Dodd
Phone: 202-224-2823
Fax: 202-224-1083
Email: Web Form:

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
Phone: 202-224-4041
Fax: 202-224-9750
Email: Web Form:


Senator Joseph R. Biden
Phone: 202-224-5042
Fax: 202-224-0139
Email: Web Form:

Senator Thomas R. Carper
Phone: 202-224-2441
Fax: 202-228-2190
Email: Web Form:


Senator Mel Martinez
Phone: 202-224-3041
Fax: 202-228-5171
Email: Web Form:

Senator Bill Nelson
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183
Email: Web Form:


Senator Saxby Chambliss
Phone: 202-224-3521
Fax: 202-224-0103
Email: Web Form:
Senator Johnny Isakson
Phone: 202-224-3643
Fax: 202-228-0724
Email: Web Form:


Senator Daniel K. Akaka
Phone: 202-224-6361
Fax: 202-224-2126
Email: Web Form:

Senator Daniel K. Inouye
Phone: 202-224-3934
Fax: 202-224-6747
Email: Web Form:


Senator Larry E. Craig
Phone: 202-224-2752
Fax: 202-228-1067
Email: Web Form:

Senator Michael D. Crapo
Phone: 202-224-6142
Fax: 202-228-1375
Email: Web Form:


Senator Richard J. Durbin
Phone: 202-224-2152
Fax: 202-228-0400
Email: Web Form:

Senator Barack Obama
Phone: 202-224-2854
Fax: 202-228-4260
Email: Web Form:


Senator Evan Bayh
Phone: 202-224-5623
Fax: 202-228-1377
Email: Web Form:

Senator Richard G. Lugar
Phone: 202-224-4814
Fax: 202-228-0360
Email: E-mail:


Senator Charles E. Grassley
Phone: 202-224-3744
Fax: 202-224-6020
Email: Web Form:

Senator Tom Harkin
Phone: 202-224-3254
Fax: 202-224-9369
Email: Web Form:


Senator Sam Brownback
Phone: 202-224-6521
Fax: 202-228-1265
Email: Web Form:

Senator Pat Roberts
Phone: 202-224-4774
Fax: 202-224-3514
Email: Web Form:


Senator Jim Bunning
Phone: 202-224-4343
Fax: 202-228-1373
Email: Web Form:

Senator Mitch McConnell
Phone: 202-224-2541
Fax: 202-224-2499
Email: Web Form:


Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Phone: 202-224-5824
Fax: 202-224-9735
Email: Web Form:

Senator David Vitter
Phone: 202-224-4623
Fax: 202-228-5061
Email: Web Form:


Senator Susan M. Collins
Phone: 202-224-2523
Fax: 202-224-2693
Email: Web Form:

Senator Olympia J. Snowe
Phone: 202-224-5344
Fax: 202-224-1946
Email: Web Form:


Senator Benjamin L. Cardin
Phone: 202-224-4524
Fax: 202-224-1651
Email: Web Form:

Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
Phone: 202-224-4654
Fax: 202-224-8858
Email: Web Form:


Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Phone: 202-224-4543
Fax: 202-224-2417
Email: Web Form:

Senator John F. Kerry
Phone: 202-224-2742
Fax: 202-224-8525
Email: Web Form:


Senator Carl Levin
Phone: 202-224-6221
Fax: 202-224-1388
Email: Web Form:

Senator Debbie Stabenow
Phone: 202-224-4822
Fax: 202-228-0325
Email: Web Form:


Senator Norm Coleman
Phone: 202-224-5641
Fax: 202-224-1152
Email: Web Form:

Senator Amy Klobuchar
Phone: 202-224-3244
Fax: 202-228-2186
Email: Web Form:


Senator Thad Cochran
Phone: 202-224-5054
Fax: 202-224-9450
Email: Web Form:

Senator Roger F. Wicker
Phone: 202-224-6253
Fax: 202-228-0378
Email: Web Form:


Senator Christopher S. Bond
Phone: 202-224-5721
Fax: 202-224-8149
Email: Web Form:

Senator Claire McCaskill
Phone: 202-224-6154
Fax: 202-228-6326
Email: Web Form:


Senator Max S. Baucus
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-0515
Email: Web Form:

Senator Jon Tester
Phone: 202-224-2644
Fax: 202-224-8594
Email: Web Form:


Senator Chuck Hagel
Phone: 202-224-4224
Fax: 202-224-5213
Email: Web Form:

Senator E. Benjamin Nelson
Phone: 202-224-6551
Fax: 202-228-0012
Email: Web Form:


Senator John Ensign
Phone: 202-224-6244
Fax: 202-228-2193
Email: Web Form:

Senator Harry M. Reid
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Email: Web Form:


Senator Judd Gregg
Phone: 202-224-3324
Fax: 202-224-4952
Email: Web Form:

Senator John E. Sununu
Phone: 202-224-2841
Fax: 202-228-4131
Email: Web Form:


Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Phone: 202-224-3224
Fax: 202-228-4054
Email: Web Form:

Senator Robert Menendez
Phone: 202-224-4744
Fax: 202-228-2197
Email: Web Form:


Senator Jeff Bingaman
Phone: 202-224-5521
Fax: 202-224-2852
Email: E-mail:

Senator Pete V. Domenici
Phone: 202-224-6621
Fax: 202-228-3261
Email: Web Form:


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Phone: 202-224-4451
Fax: 202-228-0282
Email: Web Form:

Senator Charles E. Schumer
Phone: 202-224-6542
Fax: 202-228-3027
Email: Web Form:


Senator Richard M. Burr
Phone: 202-224-3154
Fax: 202-228-2981
Email: Web Form:

Senator Elizabeth Dole
Phone: 202-224-6342
Fax: 202-224-1100
Email: Web Form:


Senator Kent Conrad
Phone: 202-224-2043
Fax: 202-224-7776
Email: Web Form:

Senator Byron L. Dorgan
Phone: 202-224-2551
Fax: 202-224-1193
Email: E-mail:


Senator Sherrod Brown
Phone: 202-224-2315
Fax: 202-228-6321
Email: Web Form:

Senator George V. Voinovich
Phone: 202-224-3353
Fax: 202-228-1382
Email: Web Form:


Senator Tom Coburn
Phone: 202-224-5754
Fax: 202-224-6008
Email: Web Form:

Senator James M. Inhofe
Phone: 202-224-4721
Fax: 202-228-0380
Email: Web Form:


Senator Gordon H. Smith
Phone: 202-224-3753
Fax: 202-228-3997
Email: Web Form:

Senator Ron Wyden
Phone: 202-224-5244
Fax: 202-228-2717
Email: Web Form:


Senator Robert P. Casey
Phone: 202-224-6324
Fax: 202-228-0604
Email: Web Form:

Senator Arlen Specter
Phone: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229
Email: Web Form:


Senator Jack Reed
Phone: 202-224-4642
Fax: 202-224-4680
Email: Web Form:

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
Phone: 202-224-2921
Fax: 202-228-6362
Email: Web Form:


Senator Jim DeMint
Phone: 202-224-6121
Fax: 202-228-5143
Email: Web Form:

Senator Lindsey O. Graham
Phone: 202-224-5972
Fax: 202-224-3808
Email: Web Form:


Senator Tim Johnson
Phone: 202-224-5842
Fax: 202-228-5765
Email: Web Form:

Senator John Thune
Phone: 202-224-2321
Fax: 202-228-5429
Email: Web Form:


Senator Lamar Alexander
Phone: 202-224-4944
Fax: 202-228-3398
Email: Web Form:

Senator Bob Corker
Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-0566
Email: Web Form:


Senator John Cornyn
Phone: 202-224-2934
Fax: 202-228-2856
Email: Web Form:

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Phone: 202-224-5922
Fax: 202-224-0776
Email: Web Form:


Senator Robert F. Bennett
Phone: 202-224-5444
Fax: 202-228-1168
Email: Web Form:

Senator Orrin G. Hatch
Phone: 202-224-5251
Fax: 202-224-6331
Email: Web Form:


Senator Patrick Leahy
Phone: 202-224-4242
Fax: 202-224-3479
Email: E-mail:

Senator Bernard Sanders
Phone: 202-224-5141
Fax: 202-228-0776
Email: Web Form:


Senator John W. Warner
Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295
Email: Web Form:

Senator James H. Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363
Email: Web Form:


Senator Maria Cantwell
Phone: 202-224-3441
Fax: 202-228-0514
Email: Web Form:

Senator Patty Murray
Phone: 202-224-2621
Fax: 202-224-0238
Email: Web Form:


Senator Robert C. Byrd
Phone: 202-224-3954
Fax: 202-228-0002
Email: Web Form:

Senator John D. Rockefeller
Phone: 202-224-6472
Fax: 202-224-7665
Email: Web Form:


Senator Russell D. Feingold
Phone: 202-224-5323
Fax: 202-224-2725
Email: Web Form:

Senator Herb Kohl
Phone: 202-224-5653
Fax: 202-224-9787
Email: Web Form:


Senator John Barrasso
Phone: 202-224-6441
Fax: 202-224-1724
Email: Web Form:

Senator Michael B. Enzi
Phone: 202-224-3424
Fax: 202-228-0359
Email: Web Form:

Source: The primary sources cited above,  BBC News, New York Times (NYT), Washington Post (WP), Mercury News,, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Intellihealthnews, Deccan Chronicle (DC), the Hindu, Hindustan Times, Times of India, AP, Reuters, AFP,  Biospace etc.

Notice: The content of the articles is intended to provide general information. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Copyright ©1998-2007
Vepachedu Educational Foundation, Inc
Copyright Vepachedu Educational Foundation Inc., 2007.  All rights reserved.  All information is intended for your general knowledge only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for special medical conditions or any specific health issues or starting a new fitness regimen. Please read disclaimer.

Om! Asatoma Sadgamaya, Tamasoma Jyotirgamaya, Mrityorma Amritamgamaya, Om Shantih, Shantih, Shantih!
(Om! Lead the world from wrong path to the right path, from ignorance to knowledge, from mortality to immortality and peace!)
One World One Family

The Andhra Journal of Industrial News
The Telangana Science Journal
Mana Sanskriti (Our Culture) Journal
Disclaimer Solicitation