text:
93 S.Ct. 861
35 L.Ed.2d 104
UNITED STATES, Appellant,
GLAXO GROUP LIMITED et al.
No. 71—666.
Argued Nov. 9, 1972.
Decided Jan. 22, 1973.
Appellees, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. and Glaxo Group Ltd., British drug companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of the fungicide griseofulvin, pooled their bulk- and dosage-form patents and sublicensed certain firms in the United States to practice the patents. The pooling agreement contained a covenant to restrict bulk sales and resales, and sublicensing agreements prohibited bulk resales to third parties without the licensors' prior consent. The United States filed a civil antitrust suit against appellees to restrain alleged violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act, and the Government also attacked the validity of the dosage-form patents, and sought the relief of mandatory, nondiscriminatory bulk-form sales and reasonable-royalty licensing of the patents. The District Court held that the bulk-sales restrictions were per se violations of § 1 and enjoined their future use, but refused the Government's request to order mandatory, nondiscriminatory sales of the bulk form of the drug and reasonable-royalty licensing of appellees' patents as part of the relief. The court also refused to entertain the Government's claim of patent invalidity, since appellees did not rely on their patents in defense of the antitrust claims. Held:
1. Where patents are directly involved in antitrust violations and the Government presents a substantial case for relief in the form of restrictions on the patents, the Government may challenge the validity of the patents regardless of whether the owner relies on the patents in defending the antitrust action. Pp. 57—60.
2. In order to 'pry open to competition' the market closed by the antitrust violations, an order for mandatory, nondiscriminatory sales to all bona fide applicants is appropriate relief, and where, as in this case, the manufacturer may choose not to make bulk-form sales, and the licensees are not bound by the court's order for mandatory sales, further relief in the form of reasonable-royalty licensing of the patents is also proper. Pp. 60—64.
328 F.Supp. 709, reversed; see also 302 F.Supp. 1.
Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Henry P. Sailer, Washington, D.C., for appellee Glaxo Group, Limited.
Sigmund Timberg, Washington, D.C., for appellee Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited.
Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States appeals pursuant to § 2 of the Expediting Act, as amended, 62 Stat. 989, 15 U.S.C. § 29, from portions of a decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in a civil antitrust suit. We are asked to decide whether the Government may challenge the validity of patents involved in illegal restraints of trade, when the defendants do not rely upon the patents in defense of their conduct, and whether the District Court erred in refusing certain relief requested by the Government.
* Appellees, Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. (ICI) and Glaxo Group Ltd. (Glaxo), are British drug companies engaged in the manufacture and sale of griseofulvin. Griseofulvin is an antibiotic compound that may be cut with inert ingredients and administered orally in the form of capsules or tablets to humans or animals for the treatment of external fungus infections. There is no substitute for dosage-form griseofulvin in combating certain infections. Griseofulvin itself is unpatented and unpatentable. ICI owns various patents on the dosage form of the drug.1 Glaxo owns various patents on a method for manufacturing the drug in bulk form, as well as a patent on the finely ground, 'microsize' dosage form of the drug.2
On April 26, 1960, ICI and Glaxo entered into a formal agreement pooling their griseofulvin patents. At the time of the execution of the agreement, ICI held patents on the dosage form of the drug, and Glaxo held bulk-form manufacturing patents. Pursuant to the agreement, ICI acquired the right to manufacture bulk-form griseofulvin under Glaxo's patents, to sell bulk-form griseofulvin, and to sublicense under Glaxo's patents. Glaxo was authorized to manufacture dosage-form griseofulvin and to sublicense under ICI's patents. As part of the agreement, ICI undertook 'not to sell and to use its best endeavors to prevent its subsidiaries and associates from selling any griseofulvin in bulk to any independent third party without Glaxo's express consent in writing.'
Subsequent to the pooling of the griseofulvin patents, ICI granted a sublicense to American Home Products Corp. (AMHO), ICI's exclusive distributor in the United States. ICI agreed to sell bulk-form griseofulvin to AMHO. AMHO was authorized to process the bulk form into dosage form and to sell the drug in that form. With respect to bulk sales the agreement stated: 'You (AMHO) will not, without first obtaining our (ICI') consent, resell, or redeliver in bulk supplies of griseofulvin.' Glaxo had previously entered into similar sublicensing agreements with two United States companies—Schering Corp. (Schering) and Johnson & Johnson (J & J). The agreements contained a covenant on the part of the licensees 'not to sell or to permit its Affiliates to sell any griseofulvin in bulk to any independent third party without Glaxo's express consent in writing.'3
On March 4, 1968, the United States filed a civil antitrust suit against ICI and Glaxo, pursuant to § 4 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 4, to restrain alleged violations of § 1 of the Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Government charged that the restrictions on the sale and resale of bulk-form griseofulvin, contained in the 1960 ICI—Glaxo agreement and the various sublicensing agreements, were unreasonable restraints of trade. The Government also challenged the validity of ICI's dosage-form patent.4
The District Court, citing this Court's decision in United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S., 365, 87 S.Ct. 1856, 18 L.Ed.2d 1249 (1967), held that the bulk-sales restrictions contained in the ICI-AMHO agreement were per se violations of § 1 of the Sherman Act.5 302 F.Supp. 1 (D.C.1969). Because ICI had filed an affidavit disclaiming any desire to rely on its patent in defense of the antitrust claims, the District Court struck the claims of patent invalidity from the Government's complaint, ruling that the Government could not challenge ICI's patent when it was not relied upon as a defense to the antitrust claims. The District Court also denied the Government's motion to amend its complaint to allege the invalidity of Glaxo's patent on 'microsize' griseofulvin.6
Subsequently, in separate, unreported orders, the bulk-sales restrictions in the Glaxo-J & J, the Glaxo-Schering, and the Glaxo-ICI agreements were found to be per se violations of § 1. The court enjoined future use of the bulk-sales restrictions, but refused the Government's request to order mandatory, nondiscriminatory sales of the bulk form of the drug and reasonable-royalty licensing of the ICI and Glaxo patents as part of the relief. 328 F.Supp. 709 (D.C.1971). The United States took a direct appeal under the Expediting Act and we noted probable jurisdiction. 405 U.S. 914, 92 S.Ct. 940, 30 L.Ed.2d 784.
The major issue before us is whether the District Court erred in ruling that the United States could challenge the validity of a patent in the course of prosecuting an antitrust action only when the patent is relied on as a defense, which was not the case here. We agree with the United States that this was an unduly narrow view of the controlling cases.
United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224, 17 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed. 144 (1897), acknowledged prior decisions permitting the United States to sue to set aside a patent for fraud or deceit associated with its issuance, but held that the federal courts should not entertain suits by the Government 'to set aside a patent for an invention on the mere ground of error of judgment on the part of the patent officials,' at least where the United States 'has no proprietary or pecuniary (interest) in the setting aside of the patent (and) is not seeking to discharge its obligations to the public . . ..' 167 U.S., at 265, 269, 17 S.Ct., at 820, 822. Subsequently, United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948), referred to American Bell Telephone as holding that the United States was 'without standing to bring a suit in equity to cancel a patent on the ground of invalidity,' id., at 387, 68 S.Ct., at 538, but went on to declare that, to vindicate the public interest in enjoining violations of the Sherman Act, the United States is entitled to attack the validity of patents relied upon to justify anticompetitive conduct otherwise violative of the law. The Court noted that because of the public interest in free competition, it had repeatedly held that the private licensee-plaintiff in an antitrust suit may attack the validity of the patent under which he is licensed even though he has agreed not to do so in his license. The authorities for this proposition were Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U.S. 173, 63 S.Ct. 172, 87 L.Ed. 165 (1942); Edward Katzinger Co. v. Chicago Metallic Mfg Co., 329 U.S. 394, 67 S.Ct. 416, 91 L.Ed. 374 (1947); and MacGregor v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co., 329 U.S. 402, 67 S.Ct. 421, 91 L.Ed. 380 (1947). The essence of those cases is best revealed in Katzinger where the Court held that, although a patent licensee (under the then-controlling law) was normally foreclosed from questioning the validity of a patent he is privileged to use, the bar is removed when he alleges conduct by the patentee that would be illegal under the antitrust laws, absent the patent. The licensee lwas free to challenge the patent in these circumstances because the 'federal courts must, in the public interest, keep the way open for the challenge of patents which are utilized for price-fixing . . .' 329 U.S., at 399, 67 S.Ct., at 419. Katzinger and Gypsum were much in the tradition of Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U.S. 224, 234, 12 S.Ct. 632, 636, 36 L.Ed. 414 (1892): 'It is as important to the public that competition should not be repressed by worthless patents, as that the patentee of a really valuable invention should be protected in his monopoly . . .,' a view most recently echoed in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 663, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 1908, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969).
We think that the principle of these cases is sufficient authority for permitting the Government to raise and litigate the validity of the ICI-Glaxo patents in this antitrust case. According to the record, appellees had issued licenses under their patents that unreasonably restrained trade by prohibiting the licensees from selling or reselling bulk-form griseofulvin and had included in the pooling agreement a covenant to impose such restrictions on licensees. These charges were sustained, the court concluding that the covenant and the patent license provisions were per se restraints of trade in the griseofulvin product market.
The District Court was then faced with the Government's attack on the pertinent patents as well as its demand for mandatory sales and reasonable-royalty licensing, the latter being well-established forms of relief when necessary to an effective remedy, particularly where patents have provided the leverage for or have contributed to the antitrust violation adjudicated. See for example, Besser Mfg. Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 444, 72 S.Ct. 838, 96 L.Ed. 1063 (1952); United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U.S. 76, 71 S.Ct. 160, 95 L.Ed. 89 (1950); International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947); Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 (1945). Appellees opposed mandatory sales and compulsory licensing, asserting that the Government would 'deny defendants an essential ingredient of their rights under the patent system,' and that there was no warrant for 'such a drastic forfeiture of their rights.' In this context, where the court would necessarily be dealing with the future enforceability of the patents, we think it would have been appropriate, if it appeared that the Government's claims for further relief were substantial, for the court to have also entertained the Government's challenge to the validity of those patents.
In arriving at this conclusion, we do not recognize unlimited authority in the Government to attack a patent by basing an antitrust claim on the simple assertion that the patent is invalid. Cf. Walker Process Equipment v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965). Nor do we invest the Attorney General with a roving commission to question the validity of any patent lurking in the background of an antitrust case. But the district courts have jurisdiction to entertain and decide antitrust suits brought by the Government and, where a violation is found, to fashion effective relief. This often involves a substantial question as to whether it is necessary to limit the rights normally vested in the owners of patents, which in itself can be a complex and difficult issue. The litigation would usually proceed on the assumption that valid patents are involved, but if this basic assumption is itself challenged, we perceive no good reason, either in terms of the patent system or of judicial administration, for refusing to hear and decide it.
The District Court, therefore, erred in striking the allegations of the Government's complaint dealing with the patent validity issue and in refusing to permit the Government to amend its complaint with respect to this issue. On remand, the District Court should consider the validity of the ICI dosage-form patent and the Glaxo microsize patent.
The question remains whether the Government's case for additional relief was sufficient to provide the appropriate predicate for a consideration of its challenge to the validity of these patents. For this purpose, as we have said, its case need not be conclusive, but only substantial enough to warrant the court's undertaking what could be a large inquiry, one which could easily obviate other questions of remedy if the patent is found invalid and which, if the patent is not invalidated, would lend substance to a defendant's claim that a valid patent should not be limited, absent the necessity to provide effective relief for an antitrust violation to which the patent has contributed. Here, we think not only that the United States presented a substantial case for additional relief, but that it was sufficiently convincing that the District Court, wholly aside from the question of patent validity, should have ruled favorably on the demand for mandatory sales and compulsory licensing.
In the first place, it is clear from the evidence that the ICI dosage-form patent, along with other ICI and Glaxo patents, gave the appellees the economic leverage with which to insist upon and enforce the bulk-sales restrictions imposed on the licensees.7 Glaxo apparently considered the bulk-sales restriction to be a prerequisite to the granting of a sublicense, for it rejected a draft of the ICI-AMHO agreement because, among other things, it would have permitted AMHO to sell griseofulvin in bulk form. There are indications, also, that Glaxo refused a sublicense to others than Schering and J & J because of fears that the companies would sell in bulk form or pressure Glaxo to allow such sales. The source of the patent-pooling agreement pursuant to which such licenses were permitted and which contained the bulk-sales restriction was simple: Glaxo needed the ICI dosage-form patent to assure its licensees the right to use the patent and sell in dosage form. Pooling permitted ICI to engage in bulk manufacture, and, in exchange, ICI imposed the bulk-sales restrictions upon its licensees. There can be little question that the patents involved here were intimately associated with and contributed to effectuating the conduct that the District Court held to be a per se restraint of trade in griseofulvin.
Secondly, we think that ICI and Glaxo should have been required to sell bulk-form griseofulvin on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and to grant patent licenses at reasonable-royalty rates to all bona fide applicants in order to 'pry open to competition' the griseofulvin market that 'has been closed by defendants' illegal restraints.' International Salt Co., 332 U.S., at 401, 68 S.Ct., at 17.
The United States griseofulvin market consists of three wholesalers, all licensees of appellees, that account for nearly 100% of United States sales totaling approximately eight million dollars. Glaxo and ICI have never sold in bulk to others than the licensees and have prohibited bulk sales and resales by the licensees. In practice, the licensees have not manufactured griseofulvin under the bulk-form patents, preferring instead to purchase in bulk form from ICI and Glaxo. The licensees sell the drug in dosage and microsize form to retail outlets at virtually identical prices. The effect of appellees' refusal to sell in bulk and prohibition of such sales by the licensees has been that bulk griseofulvin has not been available to any but appellees' three licensees and that these three are the only sources of dosage-form griseofulvin in the United States.
There is little reason to think that the appellees or their licensees, now that the bulk-sales restrictions have been declared illegal, will begin selling in bulk. It is in their economic self-interest to maintain control of the bulk form of the drug in order to keep the dosage-form, wholesale market competition-free. Bulk sales would create new competition among wholesalers, by enabling other companies to convert the bulk drug into dosage and microsize forms and sell to retail outlets, and would presumably lead to price reductions as the result of normal competitive forces. There is, in fact, substantial evidence in the record to the effect that other drug companies would not only have entered the market, had they been able to make bulk purchases, but also would have charged substantially lower wholesale prices for the dosage and microsize forms of the drug. Only by requiring the appellees to sell bulk-form griseofulvin on nondiscriminatory terms to all bona fide applicants will the dosage-form, whole-sale market become competitive.
Relief in the form of compulsory sales may not, however, alone insure a competitive market. Glaxo and ICI could choose to discontinue bulk-form manufacturing or the sale of griseofulvin in bulk form. The patent licensees might then begin to practice the bulk-form manufacturing patents pursuant to the patent licenses to fill their needs for the bulk drug. The licensees, of course, are not parties to this action, and a mandatory-sales order would not affect them. They would not be required to make the economically less advantageous bulk sales. The bulk form of the drug would be controlled by the licensees, and the appellees, because they would be required under the Government's proposed relief to sell to all applicants only so long as they sell to any United States purchasers, could easily avoid the mandatory-sales requirement. Unless other American firms are licensed to manufacture griseofulvin, competition in the United States market will depend entirely upon appellees' willingness to continue to supply their present licensees with the bulk form of the drug.
This Court has repeatedly recognized that '(t)he framing of decrees should take place in the District rather than in Appellate Courts' and has generally followed the principle that district courts 'are invested with large discretion to model their judgments to fit the exigencies of the particular case.' International Salt Co. v. United States, supra, 332 U.S., at 400 401, 68 S.Ct., at 17; accord, Ford Motor Co. v. United States, 405 U.S. 562, 573, 92 S.Ct. 1142, 1149, 31 L.Ed.2d 492 (1972). The Court has not, however, treated that power as one of discretion, subject only to reversal for gross abuse, but has recognized 'an obligation to intervene in this most significant phase of the case' when necessary to assure that the relief will be effective. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 340 U.S., at 89, 71 S.Ct., at 169. Accordingly, we have ordered the affirmative relief that the District Court refused to implement. See e.g., United States v. United States Gypsum Co. The purpose of relief in an antitrust case is 'so far as practicable, (to) cure the ill effects of the illegal conduct, and assure the public freedom from its continuance.' Id., at 88, 71 S.Ct., at 169. Mandatory selling on specified terms and compulsory patent licensing at reasonable charges are recognized antitrust remedies. See, e.g., Besser Mfg. Co. v. United States, 343 U.S. 444, 72 S.Ct. 838, 96 L.Ed. 1063 (1952); International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947); Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 (1945). The District Court should have ordered those remedies in this case.
To the extent indicated in this opinion, the judgment of the District Court is reversed.
So ordered.
Judgment reversed.
Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN concur, dissenting.
The Court has undertaken to substitute its judgment for that of Congress in the initiation of novel procedures for the determination of patent validity, and in so doing has blandly disregarded the procedural history of this case.
* There is neither statutory nor case authority for the existence of a general right of either private individuals or the Government to collaterally challenge the validity of issued patents. In the Patent Act of 1970, Congress provided that private citizens could, upon motion alleging fraudulent procurement, prompt a district court to issue to a patentee an order to show cause why his letters patent should not be repealed.1 A substantially identical provision was carried over in the Patent Act of 1793.2 But the Patent Act of 1836 contained no provision for such individual actions although it increased the number of statutory defenses in infringement actions.3 The effect of this omission was determined by Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434, 20 L.Ed. 858 (1872), to be the preclusion of private actions to cancel patents, even when fraudulently procured.
As part of the rationale in Mowry, the Court reasoned that the equitable suit for cancellation of a patent because it was fraudulently procured was a substitute for the writ of scire facias and, accordingly, it should have the same limitations. In dictum, the Court stated: 'The fraud, if one exists, has been practiced on the government, and as the party injured, it is the appropriate party to assert the remedy or seek relief.' Id., at 441. When the United States later sued to set aside two patents issued to Alexander Graham Bell subsequent to several purported acts of fraud by him on the Patent Office, this Court relied heavily on the dictum in Mowry, supra, in recognizing the right of the Federal Government to sue for the cancellation of letters patent obtained by fraud:
'That the government, authorized both by the Constitution and the statutes to bring suits at law and in equity, should find it to be its duty to correct this evil, to recall these patents, to get a remedy for this fraud, is so clear that it needs no argument . . ..' United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 128 U.S. 315, 370, 9 S.Ct. 90, 98, 32 L.Ed. 450 (1888) (Bell I).
The Government asserts that the breadth of this holding was established in the dictum in United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 159 U.S. 548, 16 S.Ct. 69, 40 L.Ed. 255 (1895) (Bell II), wherein the Court upheld its appellate jurisdiction in such patent cancellation cases. There, it was stated:
In U.S. v. American Bell Tel. Co. (128 U.S. 315, 9 S.Ct. 90, 32 L.Ed. 450), it was decided that where a patent for a grant of any kind issued by the United States has been obtained by fraud, by mistake or by accident, a suit by the United States against the patentee is the proper remedy for relief, and that in this country, where there is no kingly prerogative, but where patents for land and inventions are issued by the authority of the government, and by officers appointed for that purpose who may have been imposed upon by fraud or deceit, or may have erred as to their power, or made mistakes in the instrument itself, the appropriate remedy is by proceedings by the United States against the patentee.' Id., at 555, 16 S.Ct., 72.
But in United States v. American Bell Telephone Co., 167 U.S. 224, 17 S.Ct. 809, 42 L.Ed. 144 (1897) (Bell III), the Court characterized the above-quoted language as a 'general statement' of the power of the Government to maintain a suit and, again in dictum, limited its effect, saying:
'But, while there was thus rightfully affirmed the power of the government to proceed by suit in equity against one who had wrongfully obtained a patent for land or for an invention, there was no attempt to define the character of the fraud, or deceit, or mistake, or the extent of the error as to power which must be established before a decree could be entered cancelling the patent. It was not affirmed that proof of any fraud, or deceit, or the existence of any error on the part of the officers as to the extent of their power, or that any mistake in the instrument, was sufficient to justify a decree of cancellation. Least of all was it intended to be affirmed that the courts of the United States, sitting as courts of equity, could entertain jurisdiction of a suit by the United States to set aside a patent for an invention on the mere ground of error of judgment on the part of the patent officials. That would be an attempt on the part of the courts in collateral attack to exercise an appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the patent office, although no appellate jurisdiction has been by the statutes conferred. . . .' Id., at 269, 17 S.Ct., at 821.
The plain import of the Bell cases is that the authority of the Government to bring an independent action to cancel a patent is confined to the traditional equitable grounds of fraud, mistake, and deceit. The Government makes two arguments to support its position that it should not be as limited here. It contends that since this is an antitrust action, its right to attack the validity of the patent is established by the rationale of United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948), and is therefore not subject to the limitations of Bell III. Alternatively, it argues that Bell III has been so undercut by subsequent decisions, including Gypsum, that it should no longer be followed.
In United States Gypsum Co., supra, the Court stated in 'deliberate dicta' that the Government may challenge the validity of a patent which has been asserted by an antitrust defendant to be a defense to the Government's claim of antitrust violations. It reasoned that '(i)n a suit to vindicate the public interest by enjoining violations of the Sherman Act, the United States should have the opportunity, similar to that afforded licensees in an action for royalties, to show that an asserted shield of patentability does not exist.' Id., at 386—388, 68 S.Ct., at 538.
The Bell cases enunciate the range of the Government's authority, quite independent of any other litigation it may have with a patentee, to attack a governmental grant from the Patent Office obtained by the sort of fraud or mistake there described. The Gypsum doctrine, on the other hand, sprang from the right of the Government as a civil plaintiff under the antitrust laws to assert the invalidity of a patent grant set up as a defense to its civil complaint. Since a private licensee may attack the validity of a patent that is made the basis of an action against him for royalties, the Government should, equally, have the right to attack a patent that is set up as a defense by the patentee in the Government's action.
The Government's claim here essentially falls between these two limited grants of authority. A claim of lack of patentability, without more, is not within the Government's authority qua government to set aside a patent for fraud or mistake. And since the decision of the merits of the Government's claim of antitrust violation against these appellees in no way required the court to determine the validity of their patents, the reasoning of Gypsum is not applicable. The Government may, therefore, prevail only if we are to blur the distinction between these separate grants of authority, and extend such authority to circumstances that are within the rationale of neither.
Certainly, it is true, as the Court states, that there is a public interest favoring the judicial testing of patent validity and the invalidation of specious patents. See, e.g., Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 343—344, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 1450, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971); Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 657, 664, 89 S.Ct. 1902, 1904, 1908, 23 L.Ed.2d 610 (1969). For when a patent is invalid, 'the public parts with the monopoly grant for no return, the public has been imposed upon and the patent clause subverted.' United States v. Singer Mfg. Co., 374 U.S. 174, 197, 199—200, 83 S.Ct. 1773, 1786, 10 L.Ed.2d 823 (1963) (White, J., concurring).
Significant recognition is given to this interest by both the Bell and Gypsum doctrines. Additional authority resides in the Government to obtain judicially decreed restrictions on patent monopoly in appropriate cases where the defendant's antitrust violations have consisted, at least in part, of patent misuse. International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947); Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 (1945); Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S.Ct. 402, 86 L.Ed. 363 (1942). But the sort of roving commission that the majority now authorizes whereby the Government may request a court to invalidate any patent owned by an antitrust defendant that in any way related to the factual background of the claimed antitrust violation cannot be regarded as a reasonably necessary extension of any of these principles. It is, therefore, more properly the creature of statute than of judicial innovation.
Although the Court purports to limit its holding to avoid giving the Government such a roving commission, the range of the new authority is pointed up by the facts in this case.
The Government submitted its case to the District Court in three motions for partial summary judgment on the very narrow issue that the vertical restrictions on the resale of bulk-form griseofulvin constituted per se violations of the antitrust laws under the Schwinn doctrine.4 United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365, 87 S.Ct. 1856, 18 L.Ed.2d 1249 (1967). Although common bulk-form griseofulvin is the subject of a British manufacturing patent owned by Glaxo, it is neither patented nor patentable in the United States.
The two patents that this Court is now authorizing the Government to challenge bear no relationship whatsoever to the illegal restraint found. The ICI patent relates only to the dosage form of the drug. The majority states that 'it is clear from the evidence that the ICI dosage-form patent . . . gave the appellees the economic leverage with which to insist upon and enforce the bulk-sales restrictions imposed on the licensees.' Ante, at 60—61. But no such evidence was submitted in the Government's statement of undisputed facts that accompanied its motions for partial summary judgment on the restraint-of-alienation issue. And no such fact was included in the District Court's findings of undisputed or ultimate facts. The District Court found precisely the opposite:
'Plaintiff has not shown on this record that defendants' current licensing practices are related to the adjudged antitrust violation nor are they methods to circumvent the prohibition of restraints on resale. . . .' 328 F.Supp. 709, 713.
Since the Court's factual assumption as to economic leverage is completely contrary to the finding of the District Court, presumably the Court without saying so is holding that finding to be clearly erroneous. Yet the only support for such a holding, to which the Court refers, is an unverified statement contained in the Government's argument to the District Court on this issue. While the Government has an impressive batting average in this Court as an antitrust litigant, it has not heretofore had the benefit of having unverified assertions of its counsel treated as being of sufficient evidentiary weight to upset a considered factual finding of the District Court in which that argument was made. Nothing in the antitrust laws or in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure exempts the Government from having to make its case in the trial court in the same manner as any other litigant. The Court's conclusion that there 'can be little question that the patents involved here were intimately associated with and contributed to effectuating the conduct that the District Court held to be a per se restraint of trade in griseofulvin,' ante, at 62, is thus reached only by a substantial departure from the settled usages of appellate review.
Similarly, the other patent which the Government may now have declared invalid was not even granted until 1967, and it, too, relates to the dosage form of the drug. Since the restraints on alienation were imposed in the early 1960's, there cannot be a plausible contention that it in any way provided 'economic leverage' for the antitrust violations. And there was no other proof of its relationship to the bulk-form market and the antitrust violations.5 Thus, the scope of the new authority extends to any patent that happens to be present in a patent-licensing agreement that contains a restraint on alienation in a different market, regardless of its relationship to such restraint.
Since there is no congressional authorization for the challenge by the Government to the validity vel non of patents without regard to the relationship to antitrust violations, and since there was no proved relationship between these violations and the patents in question, I would affirm the judgment and orders of the District Court. I therefore dissent.
Specifically at issue in the present litigation is U.S. Patent No. 2,900,204, issued August 18, 1959. The patent embodies two types of claims—(1) a method of curing humans or animals of external fungus diseases by administering 'an effective amount of griseofulvin' to them internally and (2) a capsule, tablet, or pill containing an effective amount of griseofulvin.
Specifically at issue in the present litigation is U.S. Patent No. 3,330,727, issued July 11, 1967. This patent covers the improved (finely ground or 'microsize') dosage form of griseofulvin. This form has proved more effective and more marketable than other dosage forms of the drug.
Although AMHO, Schering, and J & J could have manufactured bulk-form griseofulvin under Glaxo's patents, in practice they purchased the bulk form of the drug from ICI and Glaxo and themselves performed the processes to convert the drug to dosage form.
See, supra, n. 1. The Government contended that the 'method' portion of the patent did not disclose how to practice the invention in that it failed to specify what is an 'effective amount' of the drug. See 35 U.S.C. § 112. The Government also argued that ICI's product claims were invalid because the dosage form that they covered did not specify an 'effective amount' of the drug, did not specify the diseases that could be cured, and claimed a patent monopoly over a substance long in the public domain. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 and 101.
The case was decided on the basis of various motions concerning the merits and the relief. Testimony was not received; the facts were developed in affidavits, exhibits, and interrogatories accompanying the motions.
See n. 2. The Government had sought to challenge the patent on the basis that the patent purported to monopolize a product long in the public domain, on the basis of prior disclosure, and on the basis of prior public use. See 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, 101, 102(a), 102(b).
The Government argued in the District Court:
'We submit that (United States v.) Gypsum (333 U.S. 364, 68 S.Ct. 525, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948)) should be understood more broadly to support challenge to any patent used by antitrust defendants in furtherance of their illegal program. The importance of the Imperial patent to the defendants' scheme to violate the antitrust laws is plain. It was, according to ICI's contentions, the reason for the patent pool agreement in the first place; Glaxo's grant of rights to ICI was paid for with the Imperial patent. Without the Imperial patent the defendants could not maintain their monopoly in the United States over the drug, for then anyone who could secure bulk form griseofulvin could make it up into pills and sell them without a patent to stop him; bulk form griseofulvin is, as ICI points out, unpatented. The Imperial patent thus bolsters the effectiveness of the illegal restraint on alienation ICI imposes on the resale of bulk form griseofulvin: if a small drug company somehow manages to get the unpatented bulk form drug despite ICI's restraint on alienation designed to prevent it or any one else from doing so, the defendants may still suppress the manufacture of the drug by threat of patent infringement suit. In this context, vindication of the public interest in competition in unpatentable goods is doubly important—for there is a double impediment to commerce—the patent and the conspiracy.'
The Government, throughout its brief in this Court, emphasizes the importance of the patents to the antitrust violation.
'In cases like this, the patents involved generally are of major importance in furthering the allegedly unlawful patent licensing practices; they give the defendants the power which enables them to impose the restraints of trade. That is the situation here. The patents were essential to the appellees' scheme to violate the antitrust laws.'
1 Stat. 109. For an excellent review of the history briefly summarized here, see Cullen & Vickers, Fraud in the Procurement of a Patent, 29 Geo.Wash.L.Rev. 110 (1960).
1 Stat. 318.
5 Stat. 117.
The majority inaccurately states that the lower court sustained the allegations in the complaint that appellees had unreasonably restrained trade by prohibiting the licensee from selling or reselling bulk-form griseofulvin. In fact, the District Court only found that the restraint on reselling bulk-form griseofulvin constituted the per se antitrust violations found.
This total lack of proof of any relationship also defeats for me the granting of compulsory licensing of the United States patents. Compulsory licensing is a recognized remedy in patent misuse cases, see, e.g., International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S.Ct. 12, 92 L.Ed. 20 (1947), Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386, 65 S.Ct. 373, 89 L.Ed. 322 (1945), but here the District Court specifically found there was no patent misuse or other abuse of patent rights.


text:
U.S. Federal and State Cases, Codes, and Articles
Select a tab to search United States Cases, Codes, or Articles
U.S. Federal and State Cases, Codes, and Articles
Select a tab to search United States Cases, Codes, or Articles
Search for cases
Indicates required field
Search by keyword or citation
Indicates required field
Search blogs, article pages, and cases and codes
Indicates required field
Current as of January 01, 2023 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
For the purposes of this section, the following words shall have the following meaning unless the context requires otherwise:
"Sole legal custody", one parent shall have the right and responsibility to make major decisions regarding the child's welfare including matters of education, medical care and emotional, moral and religious development.
"Shared legal custody", continued mutual responsibility and involvement by both parents in major decisions regarding the child's welfare including matters of education, medical care and emotional, moral and religious development.
"Sole physical custody", a child shall reside with and be under the supervision of one parent, subject to reasonable visitation by the other parent, unless the court determines that such visitation would not be in the best interest of the child.
"Shared physical custody", a child shall have periods of residing with and being under the supervision of each parent; provided, however, that physical custody shall be shared by the parents in such a way as to assure a child frequent and continued contact with both parents.
In making an order or judgment relative to the custody of children, the rights of the parents shall, in the absence of misconduct, be held to be equal, and the happiness and welfare of the children shall determine their custody. When considering the happiness and welfare of the child, the court shall consider whether or not the child's present or past living conditions adversely affect his physical, mental, moral or emotional health.
Upon the filing of an action in accordance with the provisions of this section, section twenty-eight of this chapter, or section thirty-two of chapter two hundred and nine and until a judgment on the merits is rendered, absent emergency conditions, abuse or neglect, the parents shall have temporary shared legal custody of any minor child of the marriage; provided, however, that the judge may enter an order for temporary sole legal custody for one parent if written findings are made that such shared custody would not be in the best interest of the child. Nothing herein shall be construed to create any presumption of temporary shared physical custody.
In determining whether temporary shared legal custody would not be in the best interest of the child, the court shall consider all relevant facts including, but not limited to, whether any member of the family abuses alcohol or other drugs or has deserted the child and whether the parties have a history of being able and willing to cooperate in matters concerning the child.
If, despite the prior or current issuance of a restraining order against one parent pursuant to chapter two hundred and nine A, the court orders shared legal or physical custody either as a temporary order or at a trial on the merits, the court shall provide written findings to support such shared custody order.
There shall be no presumption either in favor of or against shared legal or physical custody at the time of the trial on the merits, except as provided for in section 31A.
At the trial on the merits, if the issue of custody is contested and either party seeks shared legal or physical custody, the parties, jointly or individually, shall submit to the court at the trial a shared custody implementation plan setting forth the details of shared custody including, but not limited to, the child's education; the child's health care; procedures for resolving disputes between the parties with respect to child-raising decisions and duties; and the periods of time during which each party will have the child reside or visit with him, including holidays and vacations, or the procedure by which such periods of time shall be determined.
At the trial on the merits, the court shall consider the shared custody implementation plans submitted by the parties. The court may issue a shared legal and physical custody order and, in conjunction therewith, may accept the shared custody implementation plan submitted by either party or by the parties jointly or may issue a plan modifying the plan or plans submitted by the parties. The court may also reject the plan and issue a sole legal and physical custody award to either parent. A shared custody implementation plan issued or accepted by the court shall become part of the judgment in the action, together with any other appropriate custody orders and orders regarding the responsibility of the parties for the support of the child.
Provisions regarding shared custody contained in an agreement executed by the parties and submitted to the court for its approval that addresses the details of shared custody shall be deemed to constitute a shared custody implementation plan for purposes of this section.
An award of shared legal or physical custody shall not affect a parent's responsibility for child support. An order of shared custody shall not constitute grounds for modifying a support order absent demonstrated economic impact that is an otherwise sufficient basis warranting modification.
The entry of an order or judgment relative to the custody of minor children shall not negate or impede the ability of the non-custodial parent to have access to the academic, medical, hospital or other health records of the child, as he would have had if the custody order or judgment had not been entered; provided, however, that if a court has issued an order to vacate against the non-custodial parent or an order prohibiting the non-custodial parent from imposing any restraint upon the personal liberty of the other parent or if nondisclosure of the present or prior address of the child or a party is necessary to ensure the health, safety or welfare of such child or party, the court may order that any part of such record pertaining to such address shall not be disclosed to such non-custodial parent.
Where the parents have reached an agreement providing for the custody of the children, the court may enter an order in accordance with such agreement, unless specific findings are made by the court indicating that such an order would not be in the best interests of the children.
Cite this article: FindLaw.com - Massachusetts General Laws Part II. Real and Personal Property and Domestic Relations (Ch. 183-210) Ch. 208, § 31 - last updated January 01, 2023 | https://codes.findlaw.com/ma/part-ii-real-and-personal-property-and-domestic-relations-ch-183-210/ma-gen-laws-ch-208-sect-31.html
FindLaw Codes may not reflect the most recent version of the law in your jurisdiction. Please verify the status of the code you are researching with the state legislature or via Westlaw before relying on it for your legal needs.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes, visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Rabbi Aaron Starr |
According to ABC News, Halloween dates back to a Celtic holiday when spirits were believed to rise from their graves, and costumes were used to fool the spirits in hope that farmers' land would survive through the winter. Later, Christians assimilated Halloween into their own religion as the night before November 1's "All Saints' Day". Then in the 19th century, Irish immigrants adapted their own native customs to the American celebration of Halloween, carving pumpkins into lanterns to honor the souls they believed were stuck in purgatory. What is clear is that the American celebration of Halloween is a product of strong pagan and Christian traditions that have been overly commercialized by twentieth and now twenty-first century candy and costume companies.
How much better it would be for our children and our People to encourage our kids to celebrate Jewish holidays with equal passion and excitement as others do Halloween! It seems to me far more uplifting to dress our children up in celebration of Purim and to give away gifts of food to our friends and those in need than to celebrate a pagan-Christian holiday by parading through dark streets in scary costumes receiving or even begging for candy from strangers.
Aaron Starr is a rabbi at Congregation Shaarey Zedek in Southfield, Michigan. Follow him on Twitter at @RabbiStarr.
Rabbi Jason Miller |
While I would never condone Jewish children celebrating such Christian holidays as Christmas or Easter, I don't see the problem in them participating in Halloween. This American tradition may draw its roots from troubling origins (like Thanksgiving), but over the centuries it has been become re-imagined as a fun, neighborhood experience. To draw a connection from the 21st century observance of Halloween to Samhain or All Hallows Eve is shortsighted and silly. I was unaware of the Celtic, Pagan and Christian connections to Halloween as a child, and I suspect that will be the case for my children as well.
Today's practice of Halloween seems innocent enough for me to allow my children to participate without hesitation. Our Halloween tradition consists of pumpkin picking (also used to decorate our sukkah) and then carving, selecting appropriate costumes (often recycled from Purim), and then walking our neighborhood with friends to go door-to-door collecting candy. There is no begging or threatening for these gifts of chocolate bars and lollipops; only the sweet sounds of repeated "pleases" and "thank yous" from the mouths of adorable children. Halloween is a night when the neighborhood comes alive. It's an opportunity to catch up with neighbors as the cold winter looms. Upon our return home we sort through the collection of candy identifying the kosher sweets to keep and the non-kosher and undesirable ones to be donated.
To forbid our children to participate in Halloween is to pretend we're living in a gated shtetl, ignorant of the American society with which our Jewish lives coexist. I have no problem saying "no" to those I love, but I also believe in the importance of making thoughtful, sensible decisions when there's no harm to fear.


text:
How does this medication work? What will it do for me?
Diphenhydramine belongs to a group of medications known as antihistamines. Antihistamines are used to treat symptoms caused by allergies, including itchy and watery eyes, sneezing, runny nose, and skin irritation. Diphenhydramine also causes drowsiness, and can be used by adults and children 12 years of age and older who occasionally have trouble sleeping (insomnia). The effects of diphenhydramine can last for up to 6 hours.
If you have trouble sleeping, do not take this medication for more than a few nights in a row. Talk to your doctor about other treatment options suitable for you if you have chronic (long-term) insomnia that persists for more than a few nights at a time.
This medication may be available under multiple brand names and/or in several different forms. Any specific brand name of this medication may not be available in all of the forms or approved for all of the conditions discussed here. As well, some forms of this medication may not be used for all of the conditions discussed here.
Your doctor may have suggested this medication for conditions other than those listed in these drug information articles. If you have not discussed this with your doctor or are not sure why you are taking this medication, speak to your doctor. Do not stop taking this medication without consulting your doctor.
Do not give this medication to anyone else, even if they have the same symptoms as you do. It can be harmful for people to take this medication if their doctor has not prescribed it.
What form(s) does this medication come in?
This medication is available as a 50 mg tablet and a 50 mg capsule.
How should I use this medication?
The usual dose for adults and children 12 years of age and older to help with sleep is 25 mg to 50 mg taken by mouth at bedtime. Some people may only need to take 25 mg at bedtime if they are drowsy in the morning (e.g., they find it interferes with their daily activities) after taking the 50 mg dose.
Many things can affect the dose of a medication that a person needs, such as body weight, other medical conditions, and other medications. If your doctor has recommended a dose different from the ones listed here, do not change the way that you are taking the medication without consulting your doctor.
It is important to take this medication exactly as prescribed by your doctor.
Store this medication at room temperature and keep it out of the reach of children.
Do not dispose of medications in wastewater (e.g. down the sink or in the toilet) or in household garbage. Ask your pharmacist how to dispose of medications that are no longer needed or have expired.
Who should NOT take this medication?
Do not use this medication if you are allergic to diphenhydramine or any ingredients of the medication.
What side effects are possible with this medication?
Many medications can cause side effects. A side effect is an unwanted response to a medication when it is taken in normal doses. Side effects can be mild or severe, temporary or permanent.
The side effects listed below are not experienced by everyone who takes this medication. If you are concerned about side effects, discuss the risks and benefits of this medication with your doctor.
The following side effects have been reported by at least 1% of people taking this medication. Many of these side effects can be managed, and some may go away on their own over time.
Contact your doctor if you experience these side effects and they are severe or bothersome. Your pharmacist may be able to advise you on managing side effects.
- constipation
- dizziness
- drowsiness
- dry mouth, nose, and throat
- headache
- inability to concentrate
- increased perspiration
- nausea or vomiting
- restlessness
- upset stomach
Although most of the side effects listed below don't happen very often, they could lead to serious problems if you do not seek medical attention.
Check with your doctor as soon as possible if any of the following side effects occur:
- decreased muscle coordination
- difficulty in passing urine
- excitation (especially in children)
- insomnia
- muscle weakness
- nervousness
- rapid heart rate
- vision problems
Stop taking the medication and seek immediate medical attention if any of the following occur:
- chest tightness
- skin rash or hives
- wheezing
Some people may experience side effects other than those listed. Check with your doctor if you notice any symptom that worries you while you are taking this medication.
Are there any other precautions or warnings for this medication?
Before you begin using a medication, be sure to inform your doctor of any medical conditions or allergies you may have, any medications you are taking, whether you are pregnant or breast-feeding, and any other significant facts about your health. These factors may affect how you should use this medication.
Bladder or urinary problems: Diphenhydramine can worsen symptoms of bladder problems. If you have a history of bladder problems, discuss with your doctor how this medication may affect your medical condition, how your medical condition may affect the dosing and effectiveness of this medication, and whether any special monitoring is needed.
Drowsiness/reduced alertness: Avoid driving or operating machinery until you have determined that you do not become drowsy during the day or experience impaired mental or physical abilities while taking this medication. Alcohol, sedatives, and pain medications can increase the side effects (e.g., drowsiness, inability to concentrate) of this medication. Do not undertake any activities that require alertness until you know how this medication affects you.
Glaucoma: This medication may cause the symptoms of glaucoma (increased pressure in the eye) to become worse. If you have glaucoma, discuss with your doctor how this medication may affect your medical condition, how your medical condition may affect the dosing and effectiveness of this medication, and whether any special monitoring is needed. Report any changes in vision to your doctor as soon as possible while you are taking this medication.
Heart disease: Although not common, diphenhydramine can cause changes to heart rhythm and blood pressure. If you have any heart conditions, ask your health care professional if any special monitoring is required.
Lung problems: This medication can make breathing problems worse. If you have lung problems such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), discuss with your doctor how this medication may affect your medical condition, how your medical condition may affect the dosing and effectiveness of this medication, and whether any special monitoring is needed.
Medical conditions: For some people, insomnia is caused by other medical conditions. If you have trouble sleeping for longer than 2 weeks, contact your doctor before taking this medication.
Thyroid disease: If you have thyroid disease, discuss with your doctor how this medication may affect your medical condition, how your medical condition may affect the dosing and effectiveness of this medication, and whether any special monitoring is needed.
Pregnancy: This medication should not be used during pregnancy unless the benefits outweigh the risks. If you become pregnant while taking this medication, contact your doctor immediately.
Breast-feeding: This medication may pass into breast milk. If you are a breast-feeding mother and are taking diphenhydramine, it may affect your baby. Talk to your doctor about whether you should continue breast-feeding.
Children: Diphenhydramine is not recommended for use as a sleep aid for children less than 12 years of age.
Seniors: Seniors may experience more side effects such as dizziness, sedation, and blood pressure effects from diphenhydramine. Talk to your doctor before taking this medication.
What other drugs could interact with this medication?
There may be an interaction between diphenhydramine and any of the following:
- aclidinium
- alcohol
- alfuzosin
- amantadine
- amiodarone
- amphetamines (e.g., dextroamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine)
- antipsychotics (e.g., chlorpromazine, clozapine, haloperidol, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone)
- atropine
- barbiturates (e.g., butalbital, pentobarbital, phenobarbital)
- benzodiazepines (e.g., alprazolam, diazepam, lorazepam)
- benztropine
- betahistine
- botulinum toxins
- brimonidine
- buprenorphine
- buspirone
- cannabis
- chloral hydrate
- darifenacin
- dextromethorphan
- disopyramide
- domperidone
- donepezil
- dronedarone
- efavirenz
- eluxadoline
- esketamine
- fesoterodine
- flavoxate
- flunarizine
- galantamine
- glucagon
- glycopyrrolate
- ipratropium
- ketotifen
- lemborexant
- lopinavir
- magnesium sulfate
- meclizine
- methadone
- methylphenidate
- metoclopramide
- mirabegron
- mirtazapine
- monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs; e.g., moclobemide, phenelzine, rasagiline, selegiline, tranylcypromine)
- muscle relaxants (e.g., baclofen, cyclobenzaprine, methocarbamol, orphenadrine, tizanidine)
- nabilone
- narcotic pain relievers (e.g., codeine, fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, tapentadol, tramadol)
- nitroglycerin
- olopatadine
- other antihistamines (e.g., azelastine, cetirizine, doxylamine, diphenhydramine, hydroxyzine, loratadine, rupatadine)
- oxybutynin
- pitolisant
- potassium chloride
- pramipexole
- pregabalin
- procainamide
- quinidine
- rivastigmine
- ropinirole
- rotigotine
- saquinavir
- scopolamine
- seizure medications (e.g., clobazam, ethosuximide, felbamate, levetiracetam, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, valproic acid, zonisamide)
- solifenacin
- suvorexant
- tetrabenazine
- thalidomide
- thiazide diuretics (water pills; hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, metolazone)
- tiotropium
- tolterodine
- trazodone
- tricyclic antidepressants (e.g., amitriptyline, desipramine, imipramine, nortriptyline)
- trospium
- umeclidinium
- valerian
- zolpidem
- zopiclone
If you are taking any of these medications, speak with your doctor or pharmacist. Depending on your specific circumstances, your doctor may want you to:
- stop taking one of the medications,
- change one of the medications to another,
- change how you are taking one or both of the medications, or
- leave everything as is.
An interaction between two medications does not always mean that you must stop taking one of them. Speak to your doctor about how any drug interactions are being managed or should be managed.
Medications other than those listed above may interact with this medication. Tell your doctor or prescriber about all prescription, over-the-counter (non-prescription), and herbal medications that you are taking. Also tell them about any supplements you take. Since caffeine, alcohol, the nicotine from cigarettes, or street drugs can affect the action of many medications, you should let your prescriber know if you use them.
All material copyright MediResource Inc. 1996 – 2024. Terms and conditions of use. The contents herein are for informational purposes only. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition. Source: www.medbroadcast.com/drug/getdrug/Unisom


text:
Calcium Fluoride Window (CaF2) 35mm dia x 2mmthk
Diameter (mm) | 35 |
Material | Calcium Fluoride |
Coating | Uncoated |
Thickness (mm) | 2 |
Type | Standard Grade |
Calcium Fluoride (CaF₂) is commonly used for optics looking at the IR and UV spectrums and has a very low change in refractive index with wavelength. It shares similar optical properties with Barium Fluoride although it has a transmission that is 2.5µm less into the infra-red. Calcium Fluoride is however cheaper than Barium Fluoride as the optical grade occurs naturally as opposed to BaF2 being man made.
Knight Optical supply a range of quality CaF₂ windows either from stock or bespoke custom made to your specification for a range of applications. Every component is individually tested by our highly skilled technicians in our state of the art metrology lab to ensure all components meet our high quality standards. Stock windows are available in standard, UV or Raman grades, from 10mm diameter to 76x25mm rectangles. Stock can be edged and resized to our customer's individual applications at short notice.
Contact our multilingual technical sales team and discover how Knight Optical's high quality Calcium Fluoride windows and service can improve your instrumentation and supply chain experience.
Note: Stectroscopic Standard Grade rectangular windows may be cut from the same sized diameter, so may have curved edges as a result. These types also come in drilled (with 30mm spacing)/undrilled versions for use alone or as a pair.
Mounting into cells.
Edging down to smaller sizes.


text:
CHS reports third quarter fiscal year earnings July 7, 2022 Third quarter net income of $576.6 Million in fiscal 2022 earnings reflect continued strong global demand CHS Inc., the nation's leading agribusiness cooperative, today released results for its third quarter ended May 31, 2022. The company reported third quarter net income of $576.6 million and revenues of $13.1 billion, compared to third quarter fiscal year 2021 net income of $273.6 million and revenues of $10.9 billion. For the first nine months of fiscal year 2022, the company reported net income of $1.2 billion and revenues of $34.4 billion, compared to net income of $305.0 million and revenues of $28.0 billion recorded during the same period of fiscal year 2021. Fiscal 2022 third quarter highlights: Continued strong global demand, coupled with increased market volatility, resulted in higher commodity prices and improved earnings.In our Ag segment, processing and wholesale agronomy businesses delivered another strong quarter, building on momentum that began earlier in the fiscal year. Refining margins in our Energy segment were higher, driven by robust demand across global energy markets and favorable pricing for Canadian crude oil, which is processed by CHS refineries.Certain CHS equity method investments continued to perform exceptionally well, including our CF Nitrogen investment. Favorable market conditions for CF Nitrogen were driven by strong global demand for urea and urea ammonium nitrate. "Global grains and oilseed market demand remained strong throughout the third quarter," said Jay Debertin, president and CEO of CHS Inc. "Decreased global supply due to geopolitical factors, supply chain disruptions and market volatility also contributed to increased earnings. I am proud of our team's continued dedication to delivering superior value for our farmer-owners and customers in this unprecedented global market." Debertin added, "The ongoing war in Ukraine has resulted in significant uncertainty and contributed to ongoing volatility across global energy markets. We are leveraging our U.S. refineries to reliably meet the energy needs of CHS customers. We continue to invest on behalf of our owners in infrastructure, supply chain capabilities and innovative technology that is driving operational improvements and efficiency gains throughout our expansive network. And while logistical challenges and inflationary pressures linger, CHS remains well positioned to continue to maximize value for our member cooperative and farmer-owners." Energy Pretax earnings of $163.2 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022 represent a $158.3 million increase versus the same period a year ago. Improved market conditions in our refined fuels business led to increased earnings, driven by higher refining margins and more favorable pricing of heavy Canadian crude oil, partially offset by continuing high renewable energy credit costs. The ongoing war in Ukraine has contributed to significant market volatility in crude oil prices as sanctions and other responsive measures have disrupted global supply. Ag Pretax earnings of $273.7 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022 represent a $133.6 million increase versus the same period a year ago. Margins increased significantly in our oilseed processing business, driven by strong meal and oil demand. Robust global demand and increased market volatility resulted in higher commodity prices and improved earnings across most of our Ag segment businesses. Nitrogen Production Pretax earnings of $178.2 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022 represent a $131.6 million increase versus the same period a year ago. Our strategic investment in CF Nitrogen continues to perform exceptionally well, due to current market conditions and strong global demand for urea and urea ammonium nitrate. Corporate and Other Pretax earnings of $23.6 million for the third quarter of fiscal year 2022 represent a $40.9 million decrease versus the same period a year ago. The lower earnings were due primarily to our joint venture Ventura Foods, LLC, which had exceptionally high earnings in the third quarter of fiscal year 2021, as COVID-19 restrictions began to ease. *Earnings is defined as income (loss) before income taxes. CHS Inc. (www.chsinc.com) is a leading global agribusiness owned by farmers, ranchers and cooperatives across the United States. Diversified in energy, agronomy, grains and foods, CHS is committed to creating connections to empower agriculture, helping its farmer-owners, customers and other stakeholders grow their businesses through its domestic and global operations. CHS supplies energy, crop nutrients, seed, crop protection products, grain marketing services, production and agricultural services, animal nutrition products, foods and food ingredients, and risk management services. The company operates petroleum refineries and pipelines and manufactures, markets and distributes Cenex® brand refined fuels, lubricants, propane and renewable energy products. This document and other CHS Inc. publicly available documents contain, and CHS officers and representatives may from time to time make, "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as "anticipate," "intend," "plan," "goal," "seek," "believe," "project," "estimate," "expect," "strategy," "future," "likely," "may," "should," "will" and similar references to future periods. Forward-looking statements are neither historical facts nor assurances of future performance. Instead, they are based only on CHS current beliefs, expectations and assumptions regarding the future of its businesses, financial condition and results of operations, future plans and strategies, projections, anticipated events and trends, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict and many of which are outside of CHS control. CHS actual results and financial condition may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not place undue reliance on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause CHS actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements are discussed or identified in CHS filings made with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, including in the "Risk Factors" discussion in Item 1A of CHS Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2021, and Item 1A of Part II of CHS Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2022. These factors may include: changes in commodity prices; the impact of government policies, mandates, regulations and trade agreements; global and regional political, economic, legal and other risks of doing business globally, including, without limitation, risks relating to war or civil unrest; including, without limitation, risks relating to war or civil unrest; the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak or other similar outbreaks; the impact of market acceptance of alternatives to refined petroleum products; consolidation among our suppliers and customers; nonperformance by contractual counterparties; changes in federal income tax laws or our tax status; the impact of compliance or noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations; the impact of any governmental investigations; the impact of environmental liabilities and litigation; actual or perceived quality, safety or health risks associated with our products; the impact of seasonality; the effectiveness of our risk management strategies; business interruptions and casualty losses; the impact of workforce factors; our funding needs and financing sources; financial institutions' and other capital sources' policies concerning energy-related businesses; uncertainty regarding the transition away from LIBOR and the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate; technological improvements that decrease the demand for our agronomy and energy products; our ability to complete, integrate and benefit from acquisitions, strategic alliances, joint ventures, divestitures and other nonordinary course-of-business events; security breaches or other disruptions to our information technology systems or assets; the impact of our environmental, social and governance practices; the impairment of long-lived assets; and other factors affecting our businesses generally. Any forward-looking statements made by CHS in this document are based only on information currently available to CHS and speak only as of the date on which the statement is made. CHS undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise except as required by applicable law.
Control the chaos of harvest The following information is provided by Nationwide, the #1 farm and ranch insurer in the U.S.1 During the busy harvest season, farms and grain-handling facilities are some of the most… Read More
Grain Bin Safety Week raises awareness For nearly 90 years, CHS has been synonymous with integrity and community stewardship, rooted in the solid rural values of trust, mutual respect, and doing the right things for the… Read More
Calling all ag teachers! $75,000 available for ag-focused projects For 75 years, the CHS Foundation has helped develop the next generation of ag leaders for lifelong success. In honor of this milestone, the CHS Foundation will award $75,000 in grants for… Read More


text:
It Is All About BTC, LTC, ETH, DOGE, KAS mining as well as other alternative crypto currencies
Thanks to our friends at MinerEU we were able to get remote access to test an early prototype of a A2BOX Scrypt ASIC miner. These miners us the new 28nm Innosilicon A2 Scrypt ASIC chips, 48 of them on 6 modules with each chip running at 1.5M with about 10W power consumption. The total hashrate of the complete miner is 72 MHS and can be further overclocked up to about 80 MHS or even more. Do note that the tests below are ran on an early prototype of the miner, so the final products tat customers will receive will be improved and should handle even better. In fact after finishing the tests and reporting our findings there were apparently already some improvements on the software part that should improve the results people that get the final product will be getting. We are going to be doing some more tests probably later this week of the final production units to check the progress, so stay tuned for more interesting information. For the moment we are only able to provide some first impressions and performance results from our remote access testing. We are going to try to also do a hands on review later on when we are able to get our hands on the actual hardware.
The miner itself is contained in a 4U case and aside from the 6 modules with the ASIC chips it also has a power supply inside the case as well as a Raspberry Pi controller with the software to control the miner. The software itself is a modified version of cgminer 3.9.0 with support for the Innosilicon A2 Scrypt ASIC chips and by default it is only a console only version of the miner, though the unit we tested also had Scripta installed to make it easier to monitor and control the miner. In overall things were running pretty smooth and easy with the cgminer in the back and Scripta as a frontend, though we've noticed some things that could be improved and hopefully they will be in the final miners that will be shipped to people that have ordered them. The 72-80 MHS A2BOX miners are pretty big and expensive at $12000 USD each, so they are not going to be accessible to all, however we may also get smaller units with 1 or 2 modules available as well that should be slower in terms of hashrate, but also more affordable and easier to get by miners that have a smaller budget for hardware.
The default operating frequency as per the A2 chips specifications is 1 GHz with a 1.5 MHS hashrate per chip running at that frequency, though the chips should be capable of 1.1 GHz with 1.65 MHS and 1.2 GHz with 1.8 MHS per chip. Increasing the operating frequency will bring up the power consumption and the heat generated, so proper cooling gets more important in order to actually get higher performance. The modified cgminer 3.9.0 with support for A2 on the Raspberry Pi actually allowed us to set a frequency of 1000, 1080, 1100, 1200, 1280, 1300 and 1400, if set to over 1400 MHz or under 1000 MHz defaults to 1000 MHz. Another good thing is that you can set individual frequency for each module, so you can find out if any of them can work fine at a higher frequency an other at low for optimum performance. It would be good however if a finer grain frequencies could be set by the user as currently the steps you can set in terms of operating frequency are pretty high.
Here is how things looked at 1200 MHz operating frequency of the miner, pretty much the highest one that is worth running the miner at. Scripta is reporting 87 MHS local hashrate and at the pool (scryptguild) we are getting about 80 MHS average, so pretty much what is promised as achievable in terms of overclocking. Do note however that two of the modules are running at lower hashrate as compared to the others and we have found the reason for that is some cores on the chips withing the two modules were not fully functional. Do remember however that here we are testing an earlier prototype of the miner, so it is expected that some things might not be working perfectly, though the good thing is that cgminer reports that and if you have similar problem you will be able to easily notice it when running the miner. We suspect that the reason for getting significantly higher number of HW errors on these two particular modules is also a result from that fact. But even in that situation we are still getting pretty good results when overclocked to 1200 MHz, even with higher than recommended number of HW errors. We got a notice that further optimizations have been made to reduce the HW errors, so the final products should be handling better.
Example output for module 3, 410 active cores out of 432:
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] spidev0.0(cs3): Found 8 A1 chips
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 1 with 52 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 2 with 51 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 3 with 53 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 4 with 42 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 5 with 52 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 6 with 53 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 7 with 54 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found chip 8 with 53 active cores
[2014-05-08 13:50:02] Found 8 chips with total 410 active cores
Going higher in terms of overclocking brings up the local hashrate, however it also reduces the poolside one due to lower efficiency of the chips as more HW errors are being generated. So for example at 1280 MHz we were getting about 92 MHS local hashrate, but just 72 MHS poolside, clearly showing that there is no point to go higher than 1200 MHz, even when cgminer allows us to set the frequency up to 1400 MHz. Going a step lower to 1100 MHz we've got about 81 MHS local hashrate and about 77 MHS poolside, so at that frequency we are getting a lower difference between the local and the poolside hashrate than at 1200 MHz. Going one more step down to the default frequency of 1000 MHz (the minimum allowable by cgminer) we've managed to get about 72 MHS local hashrate and about 65 MHS poolside, so it seems that 1100 MHz seemed the optimal one where you are not pushing the chips too much. We have noticed that even at the lower operating frequencies the number of HW errors of the two modules that had some of their cores not properly working were still at more than 10% which is a value that is a bit too much for an ASIC device. So it seemed that the problematic cores were indeed the cause of us getting more HW errors and not pushing the chips to a higher frequency and with all of the chips properly working the local and poolside hashrate should increase a bit more than the one we've managed to get out of the early prototype that we were testing here.
In short, the new A2BOX miners based on Innosillicon A2 Srypt ASIC chips do seem to work quite good and stable, though there are still some thing that needed work and improvement. Hopefully they will be addressed in time for the final production miners to start shipping to people and we already got information as mentioned that things have been improved already and we are soon going to be able to remotely test not an early prototype, but a final product to confirm this by ourselves, so stay tuned for more information.


text:
Sign of Mandatory Use of Adjustable Protector
The mandatory adjustable protector usage signal It is available in Adhesive material, PVC 0.7 mm, PVC 2 mm and Aluminium 0.8 mm. It also has several sizes to choose for this same product.
Signage is mandatory according to UNE 81-501/81 on safety signage in the workplace in the facilities where there are people performing work with certain types of risks and are prone to accidents, hence this specificity of such risks with safety signs..
How to install a mandatory adjustable protector usage signal??
Signage shall be made on a nearby wall where mandatory use exists. The installation will be at a height visible to users.
To stickit we must apply silicone to the back of the sign, 1 silicone point for each corner and another in the middle. With 5 silicone points we will have enough to install the sign on the wall.
Signals Regulations for Mandatory Use
The regulations applied are UNE 81-501 on safety signage in the workplace.
They warn us of hazards and risks in the workplace.
Mandatory use glyphs are circular in blue and on a white background. White will cover at least 50% of the signal and have black edges.


text:
by Dr Lai Chiu-Nan
1. Liver
2. Common Bile Duct
3. Gallstones
4. Gallbladder
It has worked for many. If it works for you please pass on the good news. Chiu Nan is not charging for it, so we should make it free for everyone. Your reward is when someone, through your word of mouth, benefits from the regime. Gallstones may not be everyone's concern. But they should be because we all have them. Moreover, gallstones may lead to cancer. 'Cancer is never the first illness,' Chiu Nan points out. 'Usually, there are a lot of other problems leading to cancer.
In my research in China , I came across some materials which say that people with cancer usually have stones. We all have gallstones. It's a matter of big or small, many or few..
One of the symptoms of gallstones is a feeling of bloatedness after a heavy meal. You feel like you can't digest the food. If it gets more serious, you feel pain in the liver area.' So if you think you have gallstones, Chiu Nan offers the following method to remove them naturally.
The treatment is also good for those with a weak liver, because the liver and gallbladder are closely linked.
1. For the first five days, take four glasses of apple juice every day. Or eat four or five apples, whichever you prefer. Apple juice softens the gallstones. During the five days, eat normally.
2. On the sixth day, take no dinner.
3. At 6 PM, take a teaspoon of Epsom salt (magnesium sulphate) with a glass of warm water.
4. At 8 PM, repeat the same. Magnesium sulphate opens the gallbladder ducts.
5. At 10 PM, take half cup olive oil (or sesame oil) with half cup fresh lemon juice. Mix it well and drink it. The oil lubricates the stones to ease their passage.
PS. 1cup=250ml, ½ cup lemon juice=3 lemons (aprox.)
The next morning, you will find green stones in your stools. 'Usually they float,' Chiu Nan notes. 'You might want to count them. I have had people who passes 40, 50 or up to 100 stones. Very many.'
'Even if you don't have any symptoms of gallstones, you still might have some. It's always good to give your gall bladder a clean-up now and then.


text:
5 Home Improvements to Raise the Value of Your House
Home prices are on the rise and there is very little inventory available for buyers, so people looking for homes are snapping them up fast. This means you may getting the feeling it's time to finally put your home on the market and upgrade to your next dream house.
Of course, there are probably things you think you need to improve on your home before you try to sell it. And there are probably things you haven't considered improving, but should start considering, based on what those improvements can do to the value of your home.
When looking to raise your house's value, some improvements can cost more money than they're worth, while others are easy, inexpensive fixes with a high rate of return. Here are five of the best home improvements for raising the value of your home and making your renovation dollars back:
1. Boost Your Curb Appeal
The first thing potential buyers see when they look at your house is the exterior. That's why, to get the best price for your home, you need to raise your curb appeal. You can start by adding some color to your flower beds, putting in some path lights and making the lawn look healthy. Then spend some time and money on other outdoor improvements, like a fresh coat of paint, new shutters and an attractive, secure door handle and lock. Don't forget the backyard. In most places, homeowners can get nearly a 70 percent return when they add a deck. Just make sure you aren't spending outrageous amounts for a fancy landscape design. That may be great for you, but that's not money you get back in a sale.
2. Spruce Up the Kitchen
The next place you need to focus your improvement dollars is the kitchen. A huge kitchen remodel will boost the value of your home, but it's not required. You can get better offers for your house by simply updating the kitchen you have without spending major remodeling money. Make simpler improvements, like making sure your appliances match (some dishwasher front panels are two-sided and can be turned to go from white to black just by unscrewing the front), updating the face of your cabinets with new doors or fresh paint or stain, new countertops, a fresh backsplash treatment, new flooring and new lighting. You'll spend a little money, but it won't take nearly as long or cost as much money as entire remodel.
3. Add and Update Bathrooms
Next to a fresh, new kitchen, adding a bathroom is one of the best improvements you can make for your money. Even a half bath can add in the range of 10 percent to the value of your home, especially if it's a main-floor powder room suitable for guests. If you don't have the budget to add an entire bathroom or even a half bath, definitely put some money toward updating your existing bathrooms. They need new, efficient fixtures, fresh paint, modern hardware, good lighting and updated flooring. The list can be overwhelming, but your house will show better and you'll get better offers if your bathrooms look like they've had a lot of care and thought put into them.
4. Make Better Use of Your Space
If you can create space or at least reallocate the space in your home, you can definitely increase its value without having to go through the trouble of adding on to the square footage. A basement remodeled to be a living space will get a high rate of return. An unused den can be made into a bedroom simply by adding a closet. Or, if you have unused attic space, it can be finished and made into a bedroom and an additional bedroom adds a lot of value to a home. If you have an older home, consider ways to add storage space to appeal to potential buyers, either by adding closets or custom storage systems (most of which can be DIY). Even adding light to existing rooms with new windows or skylights can provide give you a boost in value when it comes time to show your home.
5. Make Basic Improvements
Finally, this isn't an obvious or even fun home improvement, but it's an important one for increasing the value of your home. You have to make the basic improvements and upgrade your indoor systems. This means paying for a new roof, upgrading the plumbing and electrical systems, and making sure the furnace and air conditioning are not outdated. This gives you a chance to improve your home's efficiency with new equipment and energy-efficient windows, and eliminate negative aspects that make buyers lower their offers. If you can't make these kinds of improvements before you put your home on the market, be ready to accept much less than you think it's worth, even if you've spent the time and money updating and improving other areas of your home.