Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I dont see anything I see this on Pacer website just filed today:
CONSENT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CONSENT MOTION
FOR EXTENSION OF PAGE LIMIT FOR BRIEFING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
MOTION
Defendants Google Inc., Target Corporation, IAC Search & Media, Inc., Gannet Co., Inc.
and AOL Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), by counsel, move this Court for an extension of the
page limit set forth in Rule 7 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia (“Local Rules of Practice”) in connection with an anticipated
motion for summary judgment (“Motion for Extension of Page Limits”), and in support thereof
states as follows:
1. The Defendants anticipate filing a motion for summary judgment in the
referenced matter. Pursuant to Rule 7 of the Local Rules of Practice, moving and opposition
briefs are limited to 30 pages.
2. In light of the complex issues involved in the motion, the Defendants have
requested and the Plaintiff has agreed to allow Defendants an additional 10 pages in connection
Case 2:11-cv-00512-RAJ-FBS Document 224 Filed 08/29/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 4922
2
with the briefing of its motion for summary judgment. The Plaintiff will also be allowed an
additional 10 pages in its opposition.
3. A proposed Agreed Order granting the request for an extension of the page
limitation is attached as Exhibit 1. The parties are circulating a copy of the proposed Order for
execution. Once the proposed Order is fully executed, the parties will file it with the Court for
consideration.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, by counsel, request that this Court enter the proposed
Order attached as Exhibit 1 granting an extension of the page limitations imposed by Local Rule
7 in connection with the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
DATED: August 29, 2012
PROPOSED ORDER
Before the Court is the Consent Motion for Extension of Page Limit for Briefing
Summary Judgment Motion filed by Defendants, Google Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc.,
Gannett Co., Inc., Target Corporation and AOL Inc. (“Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Page
Limits”). After considering Defendants’ Consent Motion for Extension of Page Limits, and for
good cause shown, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion for Extension of Page Limits
should be granted. It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants will be permitted an additional 10 pages in connection with the
briefing of its motion for summary judgment, with such brief not exceeding forty (40) pages in
length.
2. Plaintiff will also be permitted an additional 10 pages in its opposition, with such
brief not exceeding forty (40) pages in length.
Dated: August ____, 2012 Entered: _____/_____/_____
Nuke, Yes it looks unscheduled as they were suppose to meet August 22-23 I believe something came up. Also another interesting part of the docket entry was where it says the conference was held re: this case and MJG-02-cv-2504 which is the Star 2 Case
08/06/2012 Settlement Conference held on 8/6/2012 before Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey
re: this case and MJG-02-CV-2504. (dass, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/08/2012)
A Must Read Look who is Supporting the Anatabine Thyroiditis Study(The Walton Family) And here is the complete publication due to be published in September
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/CIGX_VIPGROUP/message/600
"This work was supported by a grant from the Walton Family Foundation"
Here are a couple great videos to watch from when Star was on Nova on TV, the episode was called "Search for a Safe Cigarete", Both videos are great if you want to learn about how Jonnie Williams discovered his tobacco curing method and interviews with him
Star comes in the first video 8:00 minutes in and the second video is all about Star and Jonnie Williams
I just saw it on the CBS evening news at 6:30 Pacific time one of the top stories
Look at the cigx options for every month that tells us where people think this is headed a lot of options activity today
Leif was he the one that wrote that stuff on his chart or did someone else write that? Is that how the chart looks on his site?
I believe it said 50 bottles ill have to go back in and see if I saved that email
On the wholesale website you have the option to buy up to (5) 6 packs but in an email from Rock Creek to medical professionals last month I believe they did say they have 50 bottle option available and to contact them for details but there was no price
From the management discussion of the 10K...
"Licensing and Intellectual Property. In 2011 and in 2010 we filed five U.S. patent applications relating to our dietary supplement products, uses of the products and product formulations. These included two applications for therapeutic treatment methods involving the administrations of anatabine, its isomers and any derivatives thereof, an application relating to the administration of anatabine, or an isomer or salt thereof, for treating chronic inflammation that may be associated with disorders such as thyroiditis, cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer's disease, and multiple sclerosis, an application for our CigRx? formulation and an application for a relapse prevention product. We also filed provisional patent applications relating to our Anatabloc? formulation, for a new tobacco product and for an enriched form of tobacco that we expect will mature into one or more non-provisional patent applications. Further, we applied for and received a design patent for our CigRx ? 20-piece dispenser in 2011. In December 2008, we filed a new U.S. patent application for a variant of our patented curing technology that results in the production of cured tobacco that contains virtually undetectable levels of carcinogenic TSNAs as measured by prevailing standards and we received a notice of allowance in that case in February 2012. We also have three pending international applications pending that relate to inflammation-mediated disorders, our CigRx?formulation and our relapse prevention product and we anticipate filing additional international applications in 2012 relating to the use of a derivative of anatabine in treating specific disorders.
We are the exclusive licensee under a License Agreement with Regent Court which grants us exclusive worldwide rights to and a right of sublicense for the StarCured? process, related patents covering the production of low-TSNA dissolvable smokeless tobacco products and the use of certain MAO agents in treating neurological conditions. For additional information related to our proprietary curing process, see "-Our Patents, Trademarks and Licenses." Two of the patents under our license with Regent Court that relate to our method for producing low-TSNA tobacco have been the subject of our ongoing lawsuit against RJR that was tried to a jury in 2009. In that litigation, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2011 issued a decision that reversed, in part, the prior jury verdict in that case and which had the effect of confirming the validity of the patent claims at issue in that litigation See "Item 3. Legal Proceedings." We continue to pursue means of collecting royalties for our curing technology through licensing arrangements and through our ongoing patent litigation with RJR. While licensing of our exclusive patent rights is a major potential source of additional revenue for us, full realization of this potential also will depend on our ability to successfully defend and enforce our patent rights."
Was distributed for conference for September 24th today
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-1182.htm
Also volume really started to pick up in the last 20 minutes somethng seems to be going on
Here it is Nuke, What do you think?
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11-1182-RJR-v-Star-Scientific-Cert-Reply.pdf
Here is RJR Reply From Yesterday:
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/11-1182-RJR-v-Star-Scientific-Cert-Reply.pdf
No they file every year last year it was filed around April. Just registering Mckeons shares he bought before in case he wants to sell them ever. Just a formality for the top holders to register their shares if and when they ever sell any
Maybe what was said in the filing was the reason for the spike yesterday? It was filed yesterday it says I am interested to read it when it becomes available on pacer
Seems to be trading today like well have some news tomorrow, Just a guess
It was on the pacer website last night 3 seperate filings
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=76402055
Deal seems more likely from what I think. Bringing these guys in who are experienced in this type of cases to finalize deal and work out all the fine print
Brought in 3 heavy hitter litigation attorneys for our side with a history of big cases and wins
Some New Filings on the Pacer Website Tonight:
3 Seperate Filings for Motion For Admission Pro Hac Vice 3 Attorneys from this Litigation Firm
http://www.klgates.com/michael-j-bettinger/#overview
http://www.klgates.com/michael-j-abernathy/
http://www.klgates.com/kim-j-askew/
It wont let me copy and paste the filings so here is the entries:
06/07/2012 1182 CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Michael J. Bettinger by Star Scientific, Inc.. The fee has already been paid.(Graham, Andrew) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
06/07/2012 1183 CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Michael J. Abernathy by Star Scientific, Inc.. The fee has already been paid.(Graham, Andrew) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
06/07/2012 1184 CORRECTED MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Kim J. Askew by Star Scientific, Inc.. The fee has already been paid.(Graham, Andrew) (Entered: 06/07/2012)
Yeah I ordered it and still waiting for it been 2 weeks now I believe. I will upload it to youtube if possible or just email you the clip after I download it
This was from the October conference I attended in Newport Beach, Ca Hopkins seems really involved and they mentioned several studies underway there but didn't go into details on any except the thyroid work they've done
Here is the program and materials people get at the Anatabloc Conferences along with this people get samples and great presentations and videos
http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2012/6/2/zgmzcprogram.jpg
http://investorshub.advfn.com/uimage/uploads/2012/6/2/nbpbqmaterials.jpg
Yeah I think everything depends on that once the SC rejects RJR then its time to negotiate and make deals I think
Here are my two posts from a few months ago on why I believe Philip Morris (A Global Entity) will be the first to strike a deal with Star they have been involved in the RJR Case for over 10 years as well they wanted to know everything that was going on in the case and Star tried to keep all documents from the case a secret from Philip Morris Here is a good read and also the letter that Star sent PM In 2003 warning them:
https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=J3nZHM7yvlhOXTmLuhyM-Q
https://acrobat.com/app.html#d=lX63LBMRqnVOVV*B8t9SCQ
Good find I didnt realize Novartis was working with Roskamp also on their MS Drug that definetly connects the dots on where that rumor came from they must be in talks still although that Novartis rumor was from February 2011 I expect to hear something soon from Novartis or another big pharm
http://www.benzinga.com/news/11/02/866371/unconfirmed-rumors-circulate-that-novartis-ag-nvs-is-in-talks-with-star-scientific
Yeah I attended one of the physicians meetings and Dr. Mullan of the Roskamp institute showed a video of 2 mice with alzheimers in side by side mazes they both had to start in the same place then find their way to the end platform. After about 3 days the one that was taking the Anatabine found his way to the end platform faster and faster and the one without Anatabine still struggled for a long time to find the end.
Here's an Article Today on RJR and their last attempt, looks like they are just grasping at straws with thte patents now:
http://www.law360.com/articles/324889
Law360, New York (March 30, 2012, 5:27 PM ET) -- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate two patents for tobacco-curing technology, arguing strongly against one of the Federal Circuit's methods for considering patent validity.
Reynolds, the second-largest tobacco company in the U.S., filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the court to take up the case after the Federal Circuit refused to reconsider an August ruling that litigant Star Scientific Inc.'s patented process for tobacco curing was valid.
The appeals court's said the patents were legitimate, but also ruled that Reynolds hadn't infringed them. Nonetheless, the tobacco giant asked the high court to strike the patents because the companies are embroiled in parallel dispute over the process.
But Reynolds went further and broader in its petition, making the case that the Federal Circuit's standard for determining if a patent is indefinite — that it does not provide sufficiently precise information on the limits of the patent's protection — is dangerously insufficient and out of sync with Supreme Court precedent.
“This court has made clear that this definiteness requirement demands that a valid patent inform the public during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted … to avoid chilling the inventive creativity of others,” the petition said. “In recent years, the Federal Circuit has developed its own standard of indefiniteness, which has proven to be much less demanding.”
The dispute between Reynolds and Star, a tobacco product development company, dates back to 2001, when Star filed the first of two patent infringement suits over a method of curing tobacco that helps prevent the formation of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, a toxin. Star was seeking as much as $350 million in damages.
The case made its way back and forth between district and circuit courts, eventually winding up in the Federal Circuit after a 2009 jury verdict invalidated Star's patents. The appeals court tossed the jury's invalidity finding in August, but also said Reynolds hadn't infringed the patent. Then in November, the court denied Reynolds' request for an en banc rehearing.
Reynolds' latest challenge, in seeking to invalidate Star's patents, openly questioned whether the Federal Circuit's “insolubly ambiguous and amenable to construction” test is rooted in a proper interpretation of the Patent Act's language.
The test in question, formulated in 2001, says a court should only rule that a patent is indefinite “when a claim remains insolubly ambiguous without a discernible meaning after all reasonable attempts at construction,” according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.
In other words, if the patent holder can reasonably define the terms of its patent claim before a judge, regardless of whether this provides a realistic explanation to the public, the patent should be ruled definite.
Star's patents list only a “controlled environment” to prevent the growth of the toxic nitrosamines, which Reynolds said provides insufficient detail and could lead to inadvertent infringement. But the sparse language easily passed the Federal Circuit's indefinite tests, Reynolds said, because the insoluble standard sets the bar too low.
And because the Federal Circuit hears all patent appeals, the petition said, the standard threatens the entire patent system.
“The issue posed by the Federal Circuit’s aberrant standard is one of great and increasing importance,” Reynolds said. “Beyond the inability of thousands of tobacco farmers and the companies that purchase their product to know whether they are infringing the Star patents at issue here, the Federal Circuit’s analysis is a source of general uncertainty for the patent system.”
Reynolds's petition said the court should strike down the insoluble test and replace it with a standard that more closely resembles the actual language of the Patent Act's requirement of “actual notice of the scope of the invention.”
Returning to the narrower issue at hand, Reynolds called the Star validity decision “an egregious example” of the insoluble test's shortcomings.
Star's tobacco curing patents “utterly fail to advise what methods or conditions to avoid in order to steer clear of the boundary of the patent claims,” the petition said, noting that the curing process lacks details like temperature. “The public is simply forced to guess what methods or techniques will and will not invade the patent monopoly.”
Counsel for both Reynolds and Star declined to comment.
Star is represented by Carter G. Phillips and Eric A. Shumsky of Sidley Austin LLP.
Reynolds is represented by Donald B. Ayer, Lawrence D. Rosenberg, Michael S. Fried and Susan M. Gerber of Jones Day, Paul Clement of Bancroft PLLC, Ralph J. Gabric, Cynthia A. Homan, Danielle Anne Phillip, Laura A. Lydigsen of Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione and David Hamilton of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP.
The case is Star Scientific Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., case number 2010-1183, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
From the Pr today also:
Couples has also agreed to become the face of Anatabloc® with GNC, in light of the expanded relationship between GNC and Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals. Millions of Americans follow Fred's progress on the golf course, and he is happy to share with them both his positive results and the hope that Anatabloc® could be the answer to help those who want to return to an active lifestyle.
It is showing up on the yahoo board I have seen it twice now
Yeah I emailed her last week and she said on or before March 15th, I know last quarter they released them in the morning also so maybe we will see Thursday morning?
From Sara in IR. Earnings will be on or before March 15th
Have you emailed this to Management? David Dean would be the one to email
No Settlement Yet, But now we have some dates and it says to continue negotiating
February 28, 2012
LETTER ORDER TO COUNSEL RE STAR SCIENTIFIC V. R.J. REYNOLDS, ET
AL., CIVIL NOS. MJG-01-1504 & MJG-02-2504
Dear Counsel:
Thank you for your participation in the telephone
conference yesterday. I thought it was helpful in formulating
the most productive plan for the upcoming mediation. Based on
our discussion, Star Scientific shall submit by April 2, 2012,
its mediation statement on its claims in the Star II litigation
to opposing counsel and the Court. The submission should set
forth the following:
1. Facts you believe you can prove at trial;
2. An evaluation of the maximum and minimum damage awards
you believe likely;
3. The history of any settlement negotiations to date; and
4. Estimate of attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation
through trial.
Star Scientific should submit a separate communication to the
Court ex parte regarding the major weaknesses in each side’s
case, both factual and legal, by the same date.
On May 2, 2012, R.J. Reynolds shall submit its mediation
statement in response to that of Star Scientific on the Star II
litigation, addressing the same items, listed above, to opposing
counsel and the Court and a separate communication to the Court
ex parte regarding the major weaknesses in each side’s case,
both factual and legal, by the same date.
On April 2, 2012, R.J. Reynolds shall submit its mediation
statement in the Star I litigation setting forth its theory of
Case 8:01-cv-01504-MJG Document 1173 Filed 02/28/12 Page 1 of 3
entitlement to attorneys’ fees with supporting facts and case
law, the amount of attorneys’ fees it is seeking and a general
itemization of those fees. It is not necessary to submit
contemporaneous time records or to support the reasonableness
and hourly rates charged therein, in other than a summary
fashion.
On May 2, Star Scientific shall submit its mediation
statement in response to that of R.J. Reynolds on attorneys’
fees, addressing the same items listed above in Star I.
The parties should attempt to limit each of their
submissions to 20 pages.
Since settlement conferences are often more productive if
the parties have previously exchanged demands and offers and
have made a good faith effort to settle the case on their own, I
require that Star Scientific and R.J. Reynolds submit a written
itemization of damages and a settlement demand to the opposing
side on April 2, 2012, with a copy to the Court, and each shall
respond and submit a written offer and any alternate itemization
of damages on May 2, 2012, again with a copy to the Court.
Thereafter, the parties should continue to engage in
negotiations.
Each side should advise the Court in its April 2
submission, the name and title of all persons who will attend
the mediation with particular reference to the corporate
representative. It is essential that the parties, or in the
case of a corporation or partnership, an officer or other
representative with complete authority to enter into a binding
settlement, be present in person. A person with Acomplete
authority@ is someone who has the experience and judgment to
exercise that authority without having to consult with anyone
who is not in attendance at the settlement conference.1
In its May 2 submission, each side should indicate whether
it feels there is any need for a scientific or technical expert
to be present at the mediation and if so, who would they
1 This requirement will only be waived upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances. If counsel believes that such
circumstances exist, a letter detailing why this Court should excuse
the representative from personal attendance should be electronically
filed for my consideration at least two weeks before the scheduled
settlement conference or immediately upon learning of the extenuating
circumstance(s), whichever event is sooner.
Case 8:01-cv-01504-MJG Document 1173 Filed 02/28/12 Page 2 of 3
propose?
As we discussed, I will set aside two days for the
mediation. I have the following dates available: June 7 and 8,
July 9 and 10, July 10 and 11, July 17 and 18, August 6 and 7.
I would ask plaintiff’s counsel to poll the parties and let me
know which dates you prefer no later than March 2. If none are
available on your calendars, please propose additional dates.
The settlement conference process will be confidential and
disclosure of confidential dispute resolution communications is
prohibited. See 28 U.S.C. ' 652(d); Local Rule 607.4.
Notwithstanding the informal nature of this letter, it is
an Order of the Court and the Clerk is directed to docket it as
such.
I look forward to working with you to resolve your dispute.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Susan K. Gauvey
United States Magistrate Judge
cc: Honorable Marvin J. Garbis
Court File
And here is the letter they wrote to Philip Morris in 2001
https://acrobat.com/#d=lX63LBMRqnVOVV*B8t9SCQ
I Think Phillip Morris Will Be Acting Soon Read All of This They Have Been Worried for Awhile and now that Patents Are Validated They Might Act Soon
https://acrobat.com/#d=J3nZHM7yvlhOXTmLuhyM-Q
It is 5th on top sellers of new items on Gnc.com pretty impressive with over 500 new items