America-Israel Patent Law

Raphael Mechoulam z"l

Cannabis has become a become a big (legal) business in recent years. This weekend marked the death of Raphael Mechoulam at the age of 92. An emeritus professor at Hebrew University, he was one of the fathers of research into cannabis. He began his work in this area in the 1960s and published some of the seminal papers on the cannabinoids found in cannabis. Pubmed indicates that in just the last 21 years - well into retirement, and a period that excludes the first 40 or more years of his research activity - he had 178 publications. His work was cited or listed as prior art in numerous patents and patent applications, and he himself is listed as an inventor on dozens of patents and patent applications, including two US patent applications published within the last year. יהי זכרו ברוך

Israel Reaches 300,000 Patent Applications

I didn't see anything about this on the Israel PTO's web site, but from the Patents Journal that published on February 1, I see that Israel hit patent application no. 300,000 on January 16, 17 or 18.  Patent applications in Israel are numbered sequentially and stay the same once a patent is granted, and since not all applications proceed to grant, this means that we're still at fewer than 300K granted patents.  Still, 300,000 applications is a respectable milestone.

To get a sense of timing, application no. 75,100 was filed in May 1985 (before Israel joined the PCT), no. 100,000 was filed in November 1991, no. 125,000 in June 1998 (after Israel joined the PCT), no. 150,000 in June 2002, no. 175,000 in April 2006, no. 200,000 in July 2009, no. 225,000 in September 2011, no. 250,000 in January 2017, and no. 275,000 in May 2020.  Most of those applications were all filed as national phase applications of PCT filings, and consequently in the ILPTO's database their filing dates are listed as the PCT filing date rather than the national phase date, but the application number accords with the date of national phase entry.

Where'd They Go?

Well, that didn't take long. On Friday I wrote about B&J's virtue-signaling (or is it peccancy-signaling?) statement on its website regarding Israel, noting that they still had Israel listed a place where they sell. By last they had changed it: no, they still hadn't posted a press release about the Unilever litigation, and no, they hadn't removed the "Don't worry, we still hate the Jews" notice. But Israel is no longer listed as one of the places where they do business:

Buh bye!

Ben & Jerry’s v Unilever Litigation Settles; Will B&J Try to Sell In Israel Via a Different Distributor?

Yesterday, Unilever published a one-liner on its web site: “Unilever is pleased to announce that the litigation with Ben & Jerry’s Independent Board has been resolved.”  There’s a longer story at the Jerusalem Post, but the information in Unilever’s statement is all we know for sure. And there’s nothing about the settlement of the litigation at B&J site.

But there is a whiny, “We’re self-absorbed Vermont leftists who are soooo pissed off at Unilever that we’re ready to explode, and please don’t question our commitment to the progressive cause” statement on B&J’s “Where We Do Business” page:

“Unilever has sold trademark rights to the Hebrew and Arabic language versions of the Ben & Jerry’s name to Blue & White Ice-Cream Ltd.  No English language trademark of the Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. has been transferred to Blue & White Ice-Cream Ltd. Blue & White Ice-Cream Ltd. is a completely separate and distinct entity from Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc.  Ben & Jerry’s has no ownership of or economic interest in Blue & White Ice-Cream Ltd.”

Thanks for the clarification, guys. A simple "We are not connected with those Jews (or Snyder's of Berlin)" would have sufficed.

Interestingly, that page still shows and lists Israel as one of the places where they do business:

Does this mean that B&J is planning to try to sell English-labeled ice cream in Israel? I’m sure they’d love to give a license to someone in Ramallah, although doing business in the areas controlled by the corrupt PA might entail some looking the other way when it comes to B&J’s morals. But my understanding from Unilever’s memorandum filed recently in the B&J litigation is that the commercial decisions regarding B&J’s ice cream, like where to sell, are in the hands of Unilever. Moreover, depending on what B&J might try to sell and where, there are potential issues of infringement of what are now Blue & White’s marks.

I’ll keep buying Avi Zinger’s ice cream. But when in the USA, I’ll buy from a manufacturer other than Ben & Jerry’s.

Yet More on Ben & Jerry’s

I’ve written twice before about the saga of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel, specifically about (a) the 2021 decision by the B&J board to not renew the license of its Israeli licensee of over 30 years, Avi Zinger (and two companies he owns) because he refused to capitulate to a demand that he not sell in areas of Israel that were occupied by Jordan from 1948 through June 1967, viz. Judea and Samaria, and (b) the licensee’s suit against B&J and its parent company, Unilever, filed earlier this year in New Jersey, to force Unilever to continue to allow the licensee to produce Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel and to sell it throughout the country, including in Judea and Samaria.

In June Unilever and the licensee settled that suit by agreeing, among other things, to transfer to the licensee all of the Unilever’s Ben & Jerry’s intellectual property in Israel, and that henceforth the Israeli licensee would be the owner of the that IP and would continue to sell manufacture Ben & Jerry’s ice cream throughout Israel, provided that its labeling be in Hebrew and Arabic, and not in English.  On that basis, the licensee’s suit against Unilever was dropped.

But that wasn’t good enough for some of the Jew-haters at B&J in Vermont: soon thereafter, Ben & Jerry’s board – or rather, a group of members of that board – sued Unilever in federal court in New York, seeking to nullify the agreement with the Israeli licensee.  Those B&J board members subsequently filed an amended complaint. Last week Unilever filed a memorandum of law in support of its motion to dismiss the case at the pleadings stage.  Unilever’s grounds for dismissal are numerous, and include the point that neither of Avi Zinger’s companies were named as defendants, so that as non-joined “indispensable parties”, the suit can’t go forward.  But the real crux of the motion is that in 2000, when Unilever took over Ben & Jerry’s, it assumed responsibility for all commercial decisions about IP, and that Ben & Jerry’s board therefore doesn’t have a basis to sue.

In the meantime, Avi Zinger & Co. continue to produce and sell Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Unilever has assigned its Ben & Jerry’s trademarks in Israel to one of Avi Zinger’s companies, and at least here in Israel, they’re proceeding on the assumption that this is a done deal. Notice the signage on the Ben & Jerry’s factory, which I toured recently courtesy of Alyza Lewin, who spearheaded the Avi Zinger’s suit against Unilever and the subsequent negotiations that led to the settlement. The English lettering has been removed, and covered over with Hebrew lettering only.  I have to say I was a bit disappointed to discover there were no Oompa-Loompas working in the factory, but, as is usually the case in industrial manufacturing, there were some cool machines (how do you get all the caps for the tubs of ice cream oriented in the right position?) … that we weren’t allowed to photograph.

Israel Ben & Jerry’s Licensee Beats the BDS BS

I wrote last year about the decision by Ben & Jerry’s not to renew its license agreement with Avi Zinger’s company, American Quality Products, when that license expires at the end of 2022. AQP manufactures Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in Israel, and sells it all over the country.  B&J tried to impose as a condition of license renewal an agreement from AQP to no longer sell the ice cream in Judea, Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem. Such a condition is illegal under Israel law, and Zinger refused to agree.

B&J’s demand was part of the so-called “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement, which ostensibly seeks to get Israel to “leave” what it illogically terms “occupied Palestinian territories” (the illogic being that there never was a state of Palestine and thus the land in question can’t be “occupied” by a foreign power), but which actually wants to see Israel wiped off the map. 

The announcement about the non-renewal of the license came about because, although Ben & Jerry’s was bought by Unilever over 20 years ago, part of the deal was that B&J could still have its own governing board that determined its “social mission”, and that board seems to be composed of people who think as clearly as Bernie Sanders, Alexandra Occasional Cortex, and other luminaries of the American political scene.

Earlier this year, Zinger and AQP, represented by Alyza Lewin of the Brandeis Center and Marc Zell of Jerusalem (among others), filed suit against both Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s in Federal District Court in New Jersey, alleging that the conditioning of the license renewal on capitulation to BDS terms violated both US and Israel law, the Israel government’s consent decree for the Unilever-B&J merger, and the license agreement with AQP. 

Yesterday, it was announced that Unilever, which retained responsibility for financial and operational decisions regarding Ben & Jerry’s, had decided to exercise its prerogative and act like the adult in the room – or at least look after its own financial interests, which had been hurt by reaction to the boycott announcement.  The press releases state that Unilever settled the NJ litigation by agreeing to sell its interest in Ben & Jerry’s in Israel to Zinger, thus allowing AQP to continue to sell Ben & Jerry’s ice cream all over Israel – including Judea and Samaria – with Hebrew and Arabic labeling, in perpetuity.  (Unilever press release; Brandeis Center press release).

As an IP practitioner, it was this last statement that intrigued me, because it seems to implicate trademark law, and it implies that the agreement precludes AQP from selling Ben & Jerry’s in Israel with English labeling.  So I wondered how this aspect of the deal might be structured.

There are presently ten active registered Ben & Jerry’s trademarks in Israel (i.e. that contain the words "Ben & Jerry's"), in Hebrew and English, that cover Ben & Jerry’s products, ice cream sales services, and clothing bearing the Ben & Jerry’s logo.  Ownership of all of these marks was transferred to Unilever in early 2021 – several months before B&J announced its refusal to renew AQP’s license agreement.

At their heart, trademark rights, like all IP rights, are negative rights – they don’t give the owner of the mark the ability to prevent others from using the mark, but rather give the mark owner the power to prevent others from using the mark without permission.  But also central to trademark rights is the use of the mark: failure to use a registered mark over a prolonged period can be the basis for a cancellation action to get the mark off the register.  (This is in contrast to patents, where, in most jurisdictions, the patentee need not make, use or sell the patented invention as a condition for keeping the patent in force.) 

There are different ways that Zinger could have obtained the right to sell B&J in Israel in perpetuity, with Hebrew and Arabic labelling. One way is for Unilever to transfer ownership of all the marks in Israel to Zinger, with a stipulation in the settlement agreement that the agreement is contingent upon Zinger not selling B&J ice cream with English labeling.  Or Unilever could transfer the ownership of the Hebrew marks only to Zinger, retaining ownership of the English marks.  These two arrangements are consistent with the statement that Unilever is selling its Ben & Jerry’s business in Israel to Zinger.  Another possibility is that Unilever could retain ownership of the marks, and license only the Hebrew marks to Zinger.  In view of Ben & Jerry’s own statement on Twitter that “Unilever's arrangement means Ben and Jerry's in Israel will be owned and operated by AQP. Our company will no longer profit from Ben & Jerry's in Israel”, such a license would presumably be a royalty-free license.

The problem with any of these scenarios is that it would mean the English marks aren’t being used, and could eventually be subject to cancellation, regardless of who owns them. A way around this would be for AQP to occasionally produce batches with English labeling, or for AQP or a third party (if Zinger/AQP is not the owner of the English language marks) to import and sell Ben & Jerry’s ice cream produced outside Israel with English labelling.  However, as noted above, such sales could not legally be subject to limitations on the place of sale, viz. the seller ice cream labelled in English could not deliberately sell only in pre-1967 Israel or agree to such a limitation on the geography of sales.

Another interesting observation is that although the press releases state that the labeling will be in Hebrew and Arabic, none of the marks presently registered in Israel are in Arabic. Presumably such marks will be registered in the near future.

But it’s not just Arabic language marks that aren’t registered in Israel.  While some of the names of ice cream flavors are registered, like Chunky Monkey and Cherry Garcia, others, like Chubby Hubby, are not.  And Phish Food is registered, in class 30 for ice cream, frozen yogurt and sorbet, but the registrant is Phish, Inc., not Unilever or Ben & Jerry’s. 

There’s also the matter of the individual ice cream recipes themselves: without those, any agreement is worthless.  Presumably the agreement also gives Zinger rights in those recipes in Israel, as well as the names of the flavors, but what about new flavors developed in the future?

Regardless of the legal mechanics of the arrangement, by reaching an agreement with Unilever, Avi Zinger and his legal team, and the government of Israel, which was also involved in the negotiations, have given the BDS BS a big “KMA”.

Babylon Bee Channels Myriad Decision

The Babylon Bee is a Christian online publication that publishes satire on a wide variety of topics. In response to yesterday's confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson to SCOTUS, it ran a piece under the headline "In Historic Moment, Senate Confirms First-Ever Non-Biologist To Supreme Court", a reference to Jackson's statement during her confirmation hearings that, not being a biologist, she was unable to define what a woman is (despite one of her qualifications for nomination having been the fact that she's a dark-skinned woman).

Clearly, the Bee's editors were unaware of Justice Scalia's concurrence in the abomination known as Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, in which he admitted he is not a biologist (and implicitly showed he knew nothing of organic chemistry or biochemistry either):

"I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature." 

Regardless, we're looking forward to more brilliant, reality-defying decisions from SCOTUS in the area of patent law once Justice Breyer is out and Justice Jackson is in.

BTW, the best line in the Bee's story is actually the one about Kamala Harris, to which the Courts' decisions in Bilski and Alice are more germane than are Myriad and Mayo.

Avi Zinger Strikes Back: More on the Ben & Jerry's Boycott Israel Saga

This post isn't really patent or even IP related.  Last year I wrote about how Ben & Jerry's announced it wouldn't renew its Israeli licensee's contract because the latter refused to stop selling ice cream in Judea and Samaria, and how from an IP practitioner's standpoint this presented several interesting possibilities, like selling ice cream under the name "Jen & Barry's", registering that mark, and eventually seeking cancellation of the Ben & Jerry's mark in Judea and Samaria for non-use (if cancellation of the mark only in those areas is possible under Israel law; I'm not sure it is).  

One point I missed at the time was that any contract that would require a licensee to refuse to sell in Judea and Samaria would be void and/or unenforceable, as such a contract violates Israeli law. Which means either the ice cream is sold throughout Israel, including Judea and Samaria, or it's not sold at all.  And if the latter, that's the basis for a trademark cancellation action.

Earlier this month, the Israeli licensee, Avi Zinger, struck back: he filed suit in Federal District Court in New Jersey seeking an injunction against the termination of the license, inter alia on the grounds that the basis for the termination violates both US and Israel law, and constitutes a breach of his existing contract.  You can read the complaint here.

Today Mr. Zinger published a piece on substack, explaining why he took the action he did.  He notes how much he has done for coexistence, and how the so-called boycott, divest and sanctions movement (BDS) is directed not against Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria but the existence of Israel, period (as evinced by B&J's refusal to consider giving distribution rights in Judea and Samaria to local Arabs - B&J's doesn't want ANY of its product sold in those areas, not to Jews, not to Arabs).

I hope Mr. Zinger prevails, for many reasons, but among them is the selfish reason that B&J in Israel recently produced a run of mint cookie ice cream, which is a personal favorite of mine.  This the first time I can recall that in over 30 years of living here, there has been locally produced mint ice cream.

It Took A Few Years, But We Can Finally Attend That Party To Which We Were Invited

Six years ago I blogged about my response to being invited (along with, presumably, every other IP practitioner on the planet) to a conference in Dubai, with which Israel did not have diplomatic relations at the time.  But then last year the Trump team pulled off the Abraham accords, and now I can even take a non-stop flight from Tel-Aviv to Dubai to participate in next year's iteration of this same conference.  Probably won't attend - won't even arrive fashionably late - but at least this time around I could if I wanted to.  So thanks to Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu for that.

New York Times Gets It Wrong, But What’s New?

Once upon a time the New York Times was a respected publication. These days it’s overpriced toilet paper (and not very soft at that, let alone perforated for easy use). Case in point: a piece it ran at the end of January under the heading, “Colombians Ask: Who Would Dare Patent Panela?”.

The impetus for the article was the issuance in April 2020 of US patent no. 10632167, entitled “System and method for processing raw sugarcane maximizing the preservation of policosanols during production of a shelf stable potable cholesterol-reducing product”.  The premise of the NYT piece is that this patent covers a long-known method to make a long-known product (panela), and thus the issuance of this patent, and related patents in Colombia and other parts of the world, will preclude Colombians from practicing a process, and producing the resulting product, that they’ve been practicing, producing and consuming for generations, and that they will be closed out of the market for export of panela to the USA and Europe. 

In what has become typical fashion for its hit pieces on patents and other disfavored subjects, the piece weaves in select facts and select omissions of facts to imply that the End of World is Nigh. Had the “reporter” done her homework, she would have asked pertinent questions, like, “Does this US patent have effect in Colombia? Does it actually cover the traditional product or the traditional way of making that product? Will it preclude importation of the product into the USA?”  But God forbid that the Times engage in actual reportage.  (Hey, if you can spend eight years doing nothing but deifying an incompetent president, and then more than four years doing nothing but smearing his successor who actually did many things right, not to mention assert, repeatedly and loudly, the canard that the USA was founded in order to perpetuate slavery of black Africans, what’s a hit piece on a single patent, right?)  So let’s delve into those questions ourselves.

First, some history: the US patent mentioned in the piece, 10632167, while constituting the maturation of USSN 15/803,037, filed in October 2017 and the first application in a chain, is not the first US patent to issue from that chain.  That distinction goes to US 10,493,121, granted in December 2019, which was filed as USSN 16/163,365, a continuation-in-part of the ‘037 application.  Those two applications served as the priority applications for PCT/US2018/058537, filed in October 2018.  It is the PCT that gave rise to related applications in Australia, Cuba, the EPO, China, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Peru and Mexico.  A third US application, 16/702,238, was filed in December 2019 on the day that the ‘121 patent issued.

Second, neither of the US patents, nor the pending US application, nor the published PCT application, nor the claims pending in Europe or Australia, claim a product per se.  All of them claim a method to produce a juice, not to produce panela, which is a solid.  Taking US 10632167 as an example, this patent has a single independent claim, which reads:

“A method for processing a quantity of unwashed raw sugarcane sticks to produce a policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product via a sugarcane juice product processing system, the unwashed raw sugarcane sticks each including a sugarcane stalk outer cortex containing natural policosanol-rich waxes and minerals, the method comprising steps of:

shredding the unwashed sugarcane sticks and conveying the shredded and unwashed sugarcane sticks toward a first one of a series of mechanical roller mills;

extracting sugarcane juice from the unwashed shredded sugarcane sticks via the series of roller mills, the shredded sugarcane sticks, while being conveyed through the series of roller mills, macerated with water having a temperature maintained within a temperature range that prevents dissolution of said policosanol-rich natural waxes and minerals in the sugarcane stalk outer cortex, to produce a volume of water-diluted extracted policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product;

filtering the diluted extracted policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product through at least one filter;

stabilizing the pH of the extracted and filtered policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product in a non-acidic solution of calcium hydroxide to a stabilized pH level within a pH range of 7.0 to 7.6;

heating the pH-stabilized sugarcane juice to a temperature maintained within a temperature range precluding evaporation of policosanols from said extracted policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product;

clarifying the heated and pH-stabilized sugarcane juice, wherein the heated and pH-stabilized sugarcane juice is flocculated using a mixture of water and at least one flocculate product, the flocculated sugarcane juice forming a glutinous froth, the glutinous froth retained and subjected to further processing in order to preserve a rich concentration of policosanols contained therein, the policosanol-rich processed froth subsequently reintroduced into the sugarcane juice product being processed;

evaporating the clarified sugarcane juice product via an evaporation apparatus including a series of evaporators, thereby incrementally increasing a sugar and policosanol concentration of the sugarcane juice product to create a post-evaporation, policosanol-rich concentrated sugarcane juice syrup having a desired post-evaporation Brix value, wherein the Brix value of the sugarcane juice product is maintained at or below 70° Bx during the entire evaporation step; and

extracting the evaporated sugarcane juice concentrate from the evaporation apparatus at said desired post-evaporation Brix value,

wherein, the sugarcane processing method maintains a juice product temperature within a temperature range precluding evaporation of policosanols from said extracted policosanol-rich sugarcane juice product throughout said process.”

That’s a method claim with a lot of steps, and the independent claims in the other US patent and pending applications are similar.  Under US law, in order to infringe, the infringer would need to practice every single one of those steps - leave out a step and there’s no infringement.  Or if some of the steps are practiced by one entity, and the other steps are practiced by another entity, and those entities aren’t acting in concert, there’s no infringement.  In this particular case, there also seems to be an easy and inexpensive out: since the starting material is unwashed sugarcane, rinsing the sugarcane with water before beginning the process would apparently result in non-infringement.  (Presumably the law is similar in this regard in the other countries where patent applications were filed.)

And of course, a US patent has no force outside the USA against actors who are acting entirely outside the USA. Patents are territorial.

Those are all facts the “reporter” could easily have ascertained, had she troubled herself to talk to a patent attorney…or, in the case of the requirements for infringement of a method claim, even to an L1 taking a patent law course. 

Similarly, she could easily have learned that in the USA, a claim on a method does not prevent others from making, using or selling the product resulting from practice of that method, unless they actually practice the claimed method to produce the product.    

And if the “reporter” had a friend who’s a more experienced patent attorney – or if she had just spoken with a patent attorney looking for some free publicity – she would have learned that 35 USC §271(g) ostensibly makes it an act of infringement to import into the USA the product of a process that is protected by a US patent, but that the case law has taken most of the teeth out of §271(g), so that if the product can be produced commercially by a non-infringing process, the imported product won’t infringe under §271(g), even if produced by the infringing process.

Why is all that relevant? Because at one point, she notes that (a) Colombia exported about 9000 tons of panela to the USA and Europe in 2019, (b) in Colombia, producers of refined sugar are precluded by law from producing panela, but (c) those same producers are not precluded from producing panela outside Colombia, so (d) if a Colombian sugar producer could control the production (and importation) of panela in (and into) the USA, such a producer could foreclose the market to the (much smaller) Colombian panela producers.  Had she done her homework as outlined above, she would have found that that’s an unlikely outcome, since, as noted, panela can produced by non-infringing methods, so §271(g) can’t be used to enjoin the importation of panela, even if produced by the patented method. 

Moreover, if indeed the process for producing panela is in the public domain (see below), then there’s nothing NOW to stop someone from producing panela in the USA and competing with the Colombian producers. Well, nothing but economics, which would seem to require a good local supply of sugarcane, and expertise in production, which the article states is difficult to find, even in Colombia.

All that, of course, is before we get to the most glaring issue, which is that if any of the claimed processes were known or were obvious before the patent applications were filed, then the claims on those processes are invalid.  This is evident from the prosecution of the European case, in which the Examining Division in its search opinion both took note of third party observations that were filed by the Federacion Nacional de Productores de Panela – FEDEPANELA (an organization mentioned in the article as trying to stymie the grant of the patents), requiring the applicant to respond to the issues raised therein, and raised its own bases for prior art rejection of the claims (in addition to raising other grounds of rejection).  To the extent the applicant admits that its own processes differ from prior art processes, that will provide others with a blueprint for how to avoid infringement.

The “reporter” has a point in that, if indeed the process claimed in the issued US patent was anticipated or obvious in view of what was known, then that’s a defect in the examination process.  What she neglects to mention in that regard is that there are now several mechanisms in place to put a check on poorly-examined US patents. 

If what she’s really lamenting is the fact that someone might seek to obtain a competitive advantage by securing the issuance of a patent, then all I can say is, Welcome to the world, honey. But it goes beyond that, because the unstated implication of her piece is that because the USPTO makes mistakes, there shouldn’t be patents.  

Hmm.  I wonder if the author has been vaccinated against the Wuhan virus. Because if she has, then among the many things and people she can thank are the patent system and President Trump, for providing the incentives to get those vaccines developed and into people’s arms in record time.  Now THAT’S a story worth covering.

One final note: the patent specification explains that panela contains alcohols collectively called policosanols, and asserts that these reduce cholesterol levels.  The method alleged maximizes the concentration of policosanols in the final product.  If indeed the product of the claimed process is novel and non-obvious, then the applicant could have tried to claim it.  For example, it could have written a claim such as, “A solid food product comprising between n-m% glucose, o-p% fructose, q-r% sucrose, and s-t% policosanols.”  Such a claim, if granted, would be much more effective than a claim on a process (at least in the USA), as it would be easy to ascertain whether or not a product infringes.  And if there’s no written analysis of old samples of panela, it would be hard to invalidate such a claim.  Whether the failure to include such a claim was deliberate or merely the result of poor lawyering, the lack of such a claim would have been worth mentioning.

A Good Explanation of the Problem with "Progressive" Views of Big Pharma

James Meigs has a piece in the newest edition of Commentary entitled "Thank God For Big Pharma".  It doesn't say anything that's not already familiar to people involved in the pharmaceutical development process, but it's still a good read.  My only criticism: he doesn't mention Bayh-Dole, but he does discuss what would happen if the private sector were taken out of the drug development process, which is what some politicians seem to be angling for (by depriving drug companies of profits).  As I've said more than once before, I'd rather someone make huge profits and there be new drugs (or in the past year, new coronavirus vaccines) than no one make huge profits and there be no new drugs; and I'm glad there's a generic drug industry to make sure that, in nearly all cases, those drugs eventually become generic, at which point their prices drop precipitously. Together those two things drive new drug development.

Online Session re: Provisional Patent Applications In Israel

On Thursday, May 20 at noon eastern time, the AIPLA Israel Practice Committee, in conjunction with the Israel Patent Attorneys Association, will be putting conducting an online session about provisional patent applications in Israel and some related matters.  Yours truly will be one of the speakers.  There is no cost, but registration at https://www.fee.co.il/aipla/0/en is required.