text:
The Complainant is Servizi Consortili Costa Smeralda S.p.a., Località Porto Cervo, Arzachena, Sassari, Italy.
The Respondent is Mr. Giovanni Piras, Muravera, Cagliari, Italy.
The domain name at issue is <costasmeralda.net> (Domain Name), which Domain Name is registered with Tucows Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada (the Registrar).
A Complaint made pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 (the Policy), to the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (the Rules) and to the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules), was submitted electronically to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) on October 2, 2001. The signed original with attachments was received by the Center on October 5, 2001.
On October 5, 2001, the Center transmitted to Register.com, which was indicated as the registrar in the Complaint, a request for Registrar Verification in connection with this case. Following Register.com reply that they were not the registrar for the Domain Name, on October 8, 2001, the Center transmitted to the Complainant a Notification of Complaint Deficiency.
On October 9, 2001, the Center received from the Complainant the Amended Complaint indicating that the registrar for the Domain Name is Tucows Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada and adding a paragraph under point 8.c) regarding the offer made by the Respondent�s lawyer on October 3, 2001, to sell the Domain Name for the sum of 8,000,000 Lira (Attachment 13 to the Amended Complaint), as evidence of use of the Domain Name in bad faith.
On October 8, 2001, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for Registrar Verification, and on October 10 the Registrar confirmed, inter alia, that: (i) Tucows Inc. is the Registrar of the Domain Name <costasmeralda.net>; (ii) the current registrant of the Domain Name is the Respondent; (iii) the administrative and billing contact is Giovanni Piras and (iv) the domain name registration was put on hold pending the dispute.
On October 11, 2001, the Center completed the Formal Requirements Compliance Checklist and on the following day transmitted to the Respondent a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings (Commencement Notification) electronically and by courier. In the Commencement Notification the Center advised the Respondent that a response was due on November 1, 2001. On the same date the Commencement Notification was copied to the Complainant and to ICANN and the Registrar.
Having received no Response from the Respondent, on November 6, 2001, the Center transmitted to the Respondent a Notification of Respondent Default, copy to the Complainant.
On November 22, 2001, the Center notified the parties that Anna Carabelli, Eva Fiammenghi and Luca Barbero had been appointed as the Administrative Panel in this proceeding, indicating that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Administrative Panel was required to send its decision to the Center by December 6, 2001.
The Panel has independently determined and agreed with the assessment of the Center that the Complaint as amended by the Amended Complaint formally complies with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.
The Complainant has provided evidence of a number of trademark registrations for the words COSTA SMERALDA (Attachments 2 to 8 to the Complaint) for Italy, (Attachment 2), the European Community (Attachment 3), Japan (Attachments 4 and 5), the United Kingdom (Attachments 6 and 7), and the U.S.A. (Attachment 8). The Panel notices that while the registrations under Attachments 3 to 7 are in the name of the Complainant, the registrations under Attachment 2 and 8 are in the name of Consorzio Costa Smeralda.
The Complainant also submitted copy of the decision rendered by the Court of Appeal of Rome dated April 18, 1997 (a final decision) in the case brought by the Complainant and Consorzio Costa Smeralda against the well-known fashion company Mario Valentino S.p.a. in connection with the Italian trademark COSTA SMERALDA. The Court of Appeal of Rome found in favor of the Complainant and assessed that COSTA SMERALDA is not primarily a geographical name but a fancy name resulting from the activities of the Consortium including as its members real estate owners and tourist operators that in 1962 created and used this name to designate a certain portion of the North Eastern Sardinian Coast. (Attachment 9 to the Complaint).
Based on Attachment 9 it results that: (i) the Italian registered trademark (Attachment 2) was assigned to the Complainant (see Attachment 9, page 7) and (ii) the Complainant and Consorzio Costa Smeralda are somehow related. Based on the above, in the Panel�s opinion, there is no conflict amongst the trademark registrations referred to in the Complaint.
In addition, the Complainant submitted a copy of the letter dated October 3, 2001, sent by the Respondent�s lawyer (Attachment 13 to the Complaint), containing an offer to sell the Domain Name for the sum of Lire 8,000,000.
- the Respondent�s bad faith in using the Domain Name is demonstrated by: (i) the lack of any evidence as to the Respondent� use or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name; (ii) the fact that the Respondent has advertised the Domain Name as for sale (Attachment 11 to the Complaint); and (iii) the offer to sell the Domain Name for a sum (Lire 8,000,000) in excess of the out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name, made by the Respondent�s lawyer on October 3, 2001 (Attachment 13).
1. Art. 15.a. of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Paragraph 4.b of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances which for the purposes of paragraph 4.a (iii) shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
Paragraph 4.c of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which if proved by Respondent, shall be evidence of the Respondent�s rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for the purpose of paragraph 4.a(ii) above.
The Domain Name is identical with the Complainant�s trademarks except that the Domain Name (i) employs lower case letters while the Complainant�s trademark is generally used in capital letters (Attachment 2 to 8 to the Complaint) and (ii) adds the generic TLD <.net>. None of the above factors has any legal significance in comparing the Domain Name to the Complainant�s trademarks. In particular, gTLDs clearly do not have any distinctive character.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant�s trademark COSTA SMERALDA.
On this record, this element had been established.
Based on the Complaint it is clear that the Complainant has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant�s trademark COSTA SMERALDA. It also appears that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name.
In addition, the trademark COSTA SMERALDA has been recognized as a fancy trademark (Attachment 9) and this recognition puts the Respondent in the position of not having any relation with the Complainant�s trademark.
There is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name by the Respondent, either in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for non-commercial purposes.
The Panel finds, therefore, that the Complainant has established a prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
In addition, the Panel considers that by submitting no Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance under paragraph 4. c of the Policy, which can demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (Spadel S.A. v. Peter Kisters WIPO Case No. D2000-0526; Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner WIPO Case No. D2000-0277; Talkcity Inc. v. Robertson WIPO Case No. D2000-0009).
Under the Policy, the Complainant is also required to prove the third element provided for in paragraph 4.a (iii), namely that the domain name "has been registered and is being used in bad faith".
As demonstrated by the Complainant, at least factor (i) of Paragraph 4.b of the Policy is applicable here and establishes bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.
The letter of October 3, 2001, sent by the Respondent�s lawyer leads to conclude that the Respondent has registered or acquired the Domain Name "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting � the domain name registration to the complainant � for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent�s documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name".
Further, the Respondent has acted with passive holding, which has been repeatedly and consistently regarded by the Panels� decisions as use in bad faith, since the very early decision Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
In addition, the Respondent should have known of the renown of the Complainant�s trademarks, particularly considering his geographical location, as an individual residing in Sardinia, when he registered the Domain Name. This suggests opportunistic bad faith (Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v. The Polygenix Group Co. WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia WIPO Case No. D2000-0226). In addition, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name (as established in paragraph 6.b above) and, therefore, could not possibly make any plausible actual or contemplated use of the Domain Name other than illegitimate use, under fair competition and trademark law principles.
The Panel decides that: (a) the Domain Name <costasmeralda.net> registered by the Respondent is identical to the Complainant�s trademark; (b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name <costasmeralda.net>; and (c) the Domain Name <costasmeralda.net> has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel requires that the Domain Name <costasmeralda.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

matches:
Art. 15
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.


text:
A father of a man who died in custody submitted a complaint to the Human Rights Committee (Committee), alleging violations of his son’s rights and his own rights under arts 2, 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by Uzbekistan. The Committee found that Uzbekistan had breached the ICCPR, finding the son had been arbitrarily deprived of life, subject to torture or cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment and that Uzbekistan had failed to conduct an adequate and impartial investigation of the allegations.
The author of the complaint to the Committee was the father of a son who was arrested and died in custody in Uzbekistan. The author contended that his son was healthy before his arrest and died as a result of his treatment in custody. The author produced to the Committee photographic evidence of trauma to his son’s body, including bruising, scratching and swelling.
Initial investigations by authorities in Uzbekistan determined there would not be criminal proceedings initiated in relation to the case. The author submitted several further petitions to various state bodies including the General Prosecutor requesting further investigations. Further internal investigations were conducted that concluded that the son died of several chronic health issues including hypertension, chronic anaemia, chronic lung infection and kidney infection resulting in brain haemorrhage. X-rays showed seven broken ribs, which were explained to be the result of cardiac massage.
The author contested the findings of the internal investigations, in particular as they were not consistent with the actual injuries as shown in his photographic evidence or his son’s prior medical history as he had never been diagnosed with any of the chronic illnesses documented.
The author submitted to the Committee that Uzbekistan had failed to properly investigate his claims, in particular by failing to exhume and re-examine the body in an open investigation, and in doing so breached his son’s and his own rights to an effective remedy under art 2 of the ICCPR. The author submitted that the treatment of his son in custody breached his son’s rights under art 6 (right to life) and 7 (prohibition against torture and ill-treatment) of the ICCPR, and that at minimum, the continued interrogation of his son while he was gravely unwell constituted torture of itself.
The first key issue for the Committee was whether there was sufficient evidence to determine that there had been a breach of arts 6 or 7 of the ICCPR by Uzbekistan against the son.
The second key issue was whether the investigation into complaints made by the author about the death of his son and alleged breaches of the ICCPR met requirements in art 2 that claims to remedy for breaches under the ICCPR be met with proper inquiry.
The Committee found that there had been a breach of arts 6 and 7 of the ICPCR both alone and when read in conjunction with art 2, with regard to the author’s son.
The Committee also found that author’s own rights under art 2 had been breached as he had been denied an effective remedy for the death of his son.
the State Party’s investigations into the highly suspicious circumstances of the death of the author’s son in the State party’s custody just nine days after his arrest by officers of the National Security Service, were inadequate, in the light of the State party’s obligation under article 6, paragraph 1, and article 7, read in conjunction with article 2, of the Covenant.
The Committee considers, therefore, that the State party’s failure to, inter alia, exhume the body and the author’s son and to properly address any of the author’s claims raised at the domestic level and in the context of the present communication about the inconsistencies between injuries on his son’s body and the explanations advanced by the State party’s authorities, warrant the finding that there has been a violation of article 6, paragraph 1 and article 7, of the Covenant, with regards to the author’s son.
The principles applied in this decision can be used as guidance for interpreting the Victorian Charter, which similarly protects the right to life (s 9) and the right to protection from torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (s 10).
In particular, the decision demonstrates that where an ICCPR right is alleged to have been abused, art 2 in conjunction with the allegedly breached rights operates to require a State to conduct an effective and independent investigation.
The Committee’s view shows a clear position that allegations of human rights abuses must be met by all signatories to the ICCPR with thorough and open investigations. The Committee appeared prepared to draw adverse inferences from the lack of a thorough investigation, such that it considered arts 6 and 7 had been breached, along with procedural breaches of art 2.
The decision is at www2.ohchr.org/tbru/ccpr/CCPR-C-99-D-1225-2003.pdf.

matches:
art 2
art 6
art 2
art 2
art 2
art 2
art 2


text:
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court denying summary judgment to individual state employees based on qualified immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (1999). The court has jurisdiction to determine whether the disputed facts are material to the claim of qualified immunity and whether the district court otherwise applied the proper legal standards. Gerhart v. Hayes, 201 F.3d 646, 648-49 (5th Cir. 2000); Meyer v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 161 F.3d 271, 273-274 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,119 S. Ct. 1806 (1999).
Plaintiff Roger Dudley, an employee of the Stephen F. Austin State University, sued University President Dr. Dan Angel, Vice-President for University Affairs Dr. Baker Patillo, Director of Student Activities Steve Westbrook, and Associate Director of Student Activities Beverly Farmer, each in his or her individual capacity.1 Dudley cross-appealed the dismissal of his claims against the University and his state law claims. Dudley concedes, however, that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to hear those claims because the district court did not enter a final judgment. The court, therefore, need not reach these issues. Dudley alleges his civil rights were violated when he was dismissed from his position as Assistant Director of Student Affairs upon assuming office as Constable of Nacogdoches County, Texas.
Until 1992, Dudley was employed as a University police officer. While off-duty he shot at the wheels of a car containing individuals he alleged were prowlers. He was charged with a violation of University policy. Dudley disputed the charge and the University settled the matter by transferring him to the Student Affairs office.
Upon his election as Constable in December, 1996, Dudley again sought outside employment permission from the University. He noted that the Constable position largely involved serving civil papers, involved little or no law enforcement work, and that the hours were flexible. [See Record Excerpts Tab 4d] The University contacted the county personnel office and was advised that the position of Constable was designated "full-time." The position pays $25,000 per year. Dudley did not cite evidence that this is not in the range of full-time salaries for some positions in thecounty. Nor does it appear disputed that the position is actually designated "full-time," although Dudley alleges the position only requires 3-4 hours of work per week.
Dudley's request for outside employment was denied. Dudley alleges that in this regard he was treated differently from the manner in which other employees were treated, and that he was fired because he ran for Constable as a Republican.3 (Dudley previously supported some Democrats). None of the defendants is alleged to be a Democrat or a member of any other party. The record reveals that defendants Angel and Farmer may have some ties to the Republican party.
"A state official exercising discretionary authority whose conduct deprives another of a right secured by federal constitutional or statutory law is nonetheless shielded from personal liability for damages under section 1983 by the doctrine of qualified immunity, unless at the time and under the circumstances of the challenged conduct all reasonable officials would have realized that it was proscribed by the federal law on which the suit is founded." Pierce v. Smith, 117 F.3d 866, 871 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 637-642 (1987)). Neither party disputes that the actions and decisions for which Dudley is suing these defendants were discretionary. Therefore, Dudley must overcome the defendants' claims of qualified immunity, by first showing a violation of clearly established federal rights. Sorenson v. Ferrie, 134 F.3d 325, 330 (5th Cir. 1998); Pierce, 117 F.3d at 872. Only if plaintiff has satisfied this burden, need we consider the second requirement for overcoming defendants' claim of qualified immunity, that is, whether the defendants' conduct was "objectively unreasonable." Cronn v. Buffington, 150 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 1998); Texas ex rel. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. Walker, 142 F.3d 813, 818 (5th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 865 (1999).
The first step of the qualified immunity analysis is subdivided into three questions: (1) whether a constitutional violation is alleged; (2) whether the law regarding the alleged violation was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation; and (3) whether the record shows that the violation occurred. Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 339 (5th Cir. 1999) (citing Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir. 1988)).
The district court erred. Dudley cannot satisfy the first part of the two-part test for overcoming qualified immunity. The Supreme Court has consistently held that "the First Amendment forbids government officials to discharge or threaten to discharge public employees solely for not being supporters of the political party in power . . ." Brady v. Fort Bend County, 145 F.3d 691, 702 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 64 (1990)), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1105 (1999). If Dudley's claim rests on political affiliation discrimination, as the district court believed, he must at least put forth evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude that these defendants discriminated against him because he ran as a Republican.4 See Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588 (1998) ("an essential element of some constitutional claims is a charge that the defendant's conduct was improperly motivated"). In a First Amendment violation case, such as this, where wrongful motive is an element of the violation, the district court must not let the objectively reasonable test of the second step overcome the requirements of the first step. See id. at 588 (plaintiff bears "initial burden of proving a constitutional violation"). Dudley did not make out a case of political affiliation discrimination which could survive summary judgment because no evidence of a constitutionally infirm motive was presented.5 The district court's attempt to fill in the gap with a theory of animus toward party switchers finds no basis in this record.
Disposition of the political affiliation claim leaves only Dudley's claim that he was denied the equal protection of the law, in that he was treated differently from other State University employees. "The Equal Protection Clause 'is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.'" Brennan v. Stewart, 834 F.2d 1248, 1257 (5th Cir. 1988) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985)). Dudley does not allege he is a member of a suspect class. Therefore, under equal protection analysis, rational basis scrutiny applies. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 306 (5th Cir. 1997).
First, the record reveals that no other University employee received permission to assume an outside position designated full-time by the outside employer. Thus, there is no similarly situated person who was treated differently. Compare Gosney v. Sonora Indep. Sch. Dist., 603 F.2d 522, 527 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding school district violated administrator's fourteenth amendment right to equal protection by denying him employment because others, similarly situated, were not denied employment). Second, the University's treatment of Dudley had a rational basis. His outside employment was designated to be full-time. It is rational to require University employees to be limited to one full-time job.
Further, assuming that the second step of qualified immunity analysis may bereached, it cannot be said that defendants' actions were objectively unreasonable based on the undisputed facts. To require the University to look behind the county's classification system or to accept Dudley's description of the position in the face of the county's declaration, as the district court did, is to place on University officials a burden they need not meet in order to be qualifiedly immune from suit.6 The officials need not be correct in their assessments; they need only be reasonable in making them.
Public officials must be free to make unpleasant or difficult discretionary decisions free from the threat of protracted litigation. Insubstantial litigation must be quickly terminated. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 814 (1982) (citations omitted). Requiring a showing of a clearly established violation of law and objectively unreasonable decision-making serves this function. See id. at 818 ("Reliance on the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law, should avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many unsubstantiated claims on summary judgment") (footnote omitted). Dudley has not met this burden.
We conclude that the district court erred in denying defendants' summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The decision below is reversed and we remand this matter to the district court for disposition of the action.
Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.
Suit against the University, an admitted arm of the State of Texas, was dismissed on Eleventh Amendment grounds; pendant state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
Dudley's counsel, at oral argument, admitted that no one had been approved for outside employment at 160 hours per month.
The letter to the Attorney General on which the district court relied is of no help to Dudley. Distinctions were drawn among Campbell and Dudley, who were seeking different positions, for legal reasons which were not irrational. There is no evidence that the distinctions were drawn because Campbell was a Democrat and Dudley a Republican.
Whether the University wished Dudley to leave its employment because of his record as its employee might present a disputed fact, but it is not material to a claim of a constitutionally infirm motive.
Dudley's description is difficult to square with both campaign information about the increased responsibilities of the position and the salary provided.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
YOUFU SUI, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER JR., Attorney General, Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Youfu Sui ("Sui"), a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") adverse credibility finding. We deny the petition because the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Jie Cui v. Holder, 712 F.3d 1332, 1336 (9th Cir. 2013).
Because Sui's entire claim for persecution is based on a single arrest and detention, the details of that event are critical. See Kaur v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2005). Sui's application described in detail a significant beating following the first interrogation, an event which he completely failed to mention in his direct testimony, despite being directly asked by counsel following a discussion of the first interrogation: "How did the police respond?" and "What did they do?" Moreover, the addition of new facts that enhance a persecution claim—such as being beaten with a belt and slashed on the wrist with a glass shard—is also generally suspect, particularly when, as here, the information is not provided until near the end of the applicant's testimony. Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245, 1254 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kin v. Holder, 595 F.3d 1050, 1057 (9th Cir. 2010). All of the reasons cited by the IJ and BIA go to the heart of Sui's asylum claim and properly support an adverse credibility finding. Ceballos-Castillo v. INS, 904 F.2d 519, 520 (9th Cir. 1990).
Sui filed an application for asylum before the May 11, 2005, enactment of the REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, and thus its amendments pertaining to credibility determinations do not apply to this appeal.
Sui also claims for the first time on appeal that he was denied due process because he was not afforded an opportunity for redirect at his hearing before the IJ. However, due process claims must be exhausted, Huang v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 2008), including claims of "procedural error that an administrative tribunal could remedy." See De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 815 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009). We thus lack jurisdiction over this claim and it must be dismissed. Id.; see also Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004).
DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
Sui's Motion to (sic) Stay of Removal Pending Review is denied as moot.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


When an application is apparently ready for allowance, it should be reviewed by the examiner to make certain that the whole application meets all formal and substantive (i.e., statutory) requirements and that the language of the claims is enabled by, and finds adequate descriptive support in, the application disclosure as originally filed. Neglect to give due attention to these matters may lead to confusion as to the scope of the patent.
There should be clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the terminology used in the claims. Usually, the original claims follow the nomenclature of the specification; but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, applicant employs terms that do not appear in the specification. This may result in uncertainty as to the interpretation to be given such terms. See MPEP § 608.01(o). It should be noted, however, that exact terms need not be used in haec verba to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265, 191 USPQ 90, 98 (CCPA 1976). See also 37 CFR 1.121(e) which merely requires substantial correspondence between the language of the claims and the language of the specification.
The claims should be renumbered as required by 37 CFR 1.126, and particular attention should be given to claims dependent on previous claims to see that the numbering is consistent. See MPEP § 608.01(j) and § 608.01(n).
The abstract should be checked for an adequate and clear statement of the disclosed invention. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The length of the abstract should be limited to 150 words. For changes to the abstract by examiner’s amendment, see MPEP § 1302.04.
The title should also be checked. The title may not exceed 500 characters in length and must be as short and specific as possible. See 37 CFR 1.72. The title should be descriptive of the invention claimed, even though a longer title may result. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may change the title on or after allowance. See MPEP § 606 and § 606.01.
All amendments should be reviewed to assure that they were timely filed.


text:
HENRY B. BYORS & SONS, INC. vs. BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF NORTHBOROUGH & others.
BILL IN EQUITY filed in the Superior Court on June 4, 1969.
The suit was heard by Leen, J.
Stanley G. Walker for the Board of Water Commissioners of Northborough.
Edward O. Proctor for Sarno Construction Co., Inc.
Robert T. Gabriel, for Northborough Housing Authority, submitted a brief.
TAURO, C.J. This is a bill in equity for a declaratory decree brought by the plaintiff, Henry B. Byors & Sons, Inc. (Byors), a plumbing subcontractor of the defendant Sarno Construction Co., Inc. (Sarno), the general contractor. Other defendants are the Northborough Housing Authority (the housing authority) and the board of water commissioners of the town of Northborough (the water commissioners). The bill seeks a declaration as to the validity of a "demand charge" imposed by the water commissioners as a condition precedent to providing water service to the building units owned by the housing authority and constructed by Sarno; and if it is valid, whether Byors is legally obligated to pay the demand charge under the terms of the subcontract with Sarno and the terms of the general contract between Sarno and the housing authority.
housing authority was justified in withholding payments from Sarno; and that Sarno was justified in withholding payments under its contract with Byors up to the amount of the charge. From this decree Byors appealed.
The facts are summarized: On or about July 17, 1968, Sarno and the housing authority entered into a general contract for the construction of a housing project for the elderly in Northborough. Byors and Sarno entered into a subcontract whereby for the sum of $99,000 Byors agreed to supply the labor and materials for the plumbing work on the project.
There was no item in the subbid of Byors or in the general bid of Sarno concerning the payment of a demand charge to the water commissioners as a condition precedent to providing water service to the project.
Sarno about its dispute with the water commissioners. The water commissioners refused to permit the connection.
On June 3, 1969, Byors commenced the present suit. On or about June 3, 1969, Beacon Architectural Associates, the architect hired by the housing authority in connection with the construction of the housing project, in accordance with contractual provisions, notified Sarno of its decision that Byors was required to pay the demand charge under the subcontract with Sarno. [Note 2] Byors was notified of the architect's decision on June 8, 1969. Although the contract provides for an appeal from the architect's decision, Byors has not appealed.
On or about June 24, 1969, the housing authority paid the demand charge, informing Sarno at the same time of its intention to withhold the amount of the charge, $10,950, from its payment to Sarno. Sarno, likewise, has withheld the amount of the charge from payments to Byors under the subcontract.
VALIDITY OF THE DEMAND CHARGE.
The first issue to be determined is whether it was within the power and authority of the water commissioners to demand a charge of $10,950 before permitting a connection between the town water main and the housing project. We hold that the water commissioners had such authority. The relevant legislative provisions are c. 192 of St. 1882, G. L. c. 40, Section 42G, and G. L. c. 41, Section 69B. Each one has been accepted by the town of Northborough, acting through its town meeting.
determining whether and upon what terms to make extensions of its lines."
Byors contends further that the demand charge is unreasonable and discriminatory. The burden of proof here is on Byors. Souther v. Gloucester, 187 Mass. 552, 556. Paragraph 24 of the statement of agreed facts provides the only evidence on the point. It clearly delineates the reasons for the demand charge and for the expenditure of large sums in order that adequate service might be provided to the units already built and those to be built. [Note 4] We feel, therefore, that Byors has not sustained its burden of proof. See Souther v. Gloucester, supra, at 556; Brand v. Water Commrs. of Billerica, 242 Mass. 223, 228.
LIABILITY FOR THE DEMAND CHARGE UNDER THE CONTRACT.
of the demand charge, this court and the court below necessarily accepted the contention that the "demand charge" is a charge for use of water. A property owner, in the absence of a binding agreement, is obligated to pay for water service and for charges connected therewith. We believe that the contract documents in this case do not place this responsibility on a party other than the owner.
Both the architect and the trial judge cited the contract provision requiring Byors to "[o]btain all necessary permits and licenses and pay all connected fees." In his decision the trial judge emphasized the word "connected" and concluded that Byors is required "to pay all legitimate charges of the Board of Northborough Water Commissioners for connecting the project water service to the town main." The words "permits and licenses" and "connected fees" in their natural interpretation within the provisions of the general contract and subcontract refer only to those permits and licenses that the contractor or subcontractor is required to obtain before beginning the work under his contract. Byors did obtain ten permits to do the plumbing work. This requirement insures that the work will be done in accordance with the rules, regulations and ordinances of the municipality. Conversely, the words cannot be construed as requiring the subcontractor to pay the "demand charge" which is a prerequisite to the sale of water by the water commissioners to the housing authority. In other words, we read the clause in question to require that Byors pay only the fees connected with the work and materials it is obligated to furnish under the contract. The demand charge of $10,950 is not such a "fee."
supplied in the rule). The natural and logical construction of these documents is that the application form is to be executed by the housing authority as owner and that the housing authority alone assumes the responsibilities created thereunder. Rule 1 of the rules and regulations and Section 8A, subdivision 1, in the contract required merely a routine handling by Byors of the application for water service. The obvious reason for these provisions is that the plumbing subcontractor would be in the best position to determine when the plumbing work and the installation of outside water pipes had progressed to the point where the housing authority project could be tied into the eight inch water main in the street. In "handling" the application Byors acted only as an agent for the housing authority in accordance with the "rules and regulations" and did not thereby assume personal obligation to pay the demand charge. See Porshin v. Snider, 349 Mass. 653, 655.
Finally, the architect referred to "[i]nstructions to bidders" which required, "General Bidders and Plumbing Sub-Bidders are required to obtain, prior to the submission of bids, the rules and regulations of the Town of Northborough Water Department . . . ." There is nothing in the rules and regulations to put Byors on notice that he was to pay a demand charge of $10,950 for water service to the housing authority. On the contrary, a reasonable interpretation of the rules and regulations, together with the application form, leads to an opposite conclusion, namely, that the obligation for paying the demand charge rested solely on the housing authority. In the circumstances here presented we rule that nothing in the contract documents requires that either Byors or Sarno pay the demand charge and that they obligated themselves "to do only precisely the work on which . . . [they] had bid." Fred C. McLean Heating Supplies, Inc. v. Jefferson Constr. Co. 339 Mass. 356, 362.
Division of Housing, whose decision shall be final." [Note 7] Pursuant to this provision, and for reasons stated, the architect decided that Byors was required to pay the demand charge.
attempts to pass on matters not contemplated by the contract. Thus in Morgan v. Burlington, supra, the contract gave the architect broad powers to interpret the plans, specifications and contract; nevertheless, the court held that the architect had exceeded his authority in taking work from one party and awarding it on bids to another person. See Derby Desk Co. v. Conners Bros. Constr. Co. 204 Mass. 461. In the instant case, "[a]lthough . . . [the architect's] power was broad, it was not without rational limits." Morgan v. Burlington, supra, at 420. There is nothing in the contract that imposed the responsibility of payment of the demand charge (not covered in the contract) upon Byors. "The power to interpret the contract did not give him the power to make a new contract for the parties . . . . He could translate the contract and ascertain its meaning but he could not add to or detract from the text." Id. at 420. The architect was acting beyond his authority in deciding that Byors was responsible for payment of the demand charge. Therefore, his decision must be regarded as a nullity. See Morgan v. Murdough, 216 Mass. 502, 505; J. F. Fitzgerald Constr. Co. v. Southbridge Water Supply Co. 304 Mass. 130, 134. See generally, 54 A. L. R. 1255.
The final decree is reversed; a new decree is to be entered that the demand charge is valid and that the housing authority is liable for it.
[Note 1] Paragraph 24 of the statement of agreed facts states: "The demand charge referred to herein and in the pleadings and exhibits was voted by the Board of Water Commissioners to pay a portion of the cost of supplying sufficient water at adequate pressure to meet the increasing demands for water by the cumulative effect of new household units being supplied with water. To adequately serve five hundred new household units it is necessary to purchase a new well site, construct a well with pumping station, filtration equipment, appurtenances and attachments to the mains at a cost, based on prior expenditures, of between $75,000 and $100,000. To serve 1,000 new household units with sufficient pressure, it is necessary to locate and construct additional storage and pressure facilities at a cost, based on prior expenditures, of about $80,000. Other costs, which are the direct result of such added demands for water, are the replacement of existing water mains with larger pipes, capable of carrying sufficient water to meet the increasing loads."
[Note 2] The statement of agreed facts states the following: "The general contract provides in its general conditions that all disputes arising under this contract shall be decided by the Architect subject to the right of appeal to the Deputy Commissioner for the Division of Housing, whose decision shall be final."
[Note 3] Statute 1882, c. 192, provides in part as follows: "SECTION 1. The town of Northborough may supply itself and its inhabitants with water . . . and may fix and collect rents for the use of such water. . . . SECTION 7. . . . All the authority granted to the said town by this act and not otherwise specifically provided for shall be vested in said board of water commissioners . . . ."
[Note 4] See fn. 1, supra.
[Note 5] The trial judge, in his decision, stated: "I have characterized the question for determination here as `troublesome' because it might well have been expected that a charge of the magnitude of the demand charge with which we are concerned here would be borne by the Housing Authority, which is in the position of an owner in terms of normal building contracts. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant Sarno contemplated that this charge should be borne by either of them. In the event they had, the bids which were submitted could reasonably have been expected to include an item of such magnitude. In fact neither of the bids contained any provision for such a charge. It is clear from the record that what the contractors, both the general contractor Sarno, and the subcontractor, the plaintiff expected to pay were what may be fairly characterized as nominal charges for permits from the municipal authorities."
[Note 7] See fn. 2, supra.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
[J20] L. Schmidt, E. Gamper, T. Feuerle, and E. Stoll, “Evaluation of the impact on European air traffic by uncontrolled reentering spacecraft with initial state uncertainty,” CEAS Aeronaut. J., submitted.
[J19] V. Braun, H. Klinkrad, and E. Stoll, “Orbit information of predetermined accuracy and its sharing in the space situational awareness context,” Acta Astronaut., Jan. 2019.
[J18] A. J. R. Lopez-Arreguin, E. Stoll, and J. Letschnik, “Modeling degraded performance metrics of optical amplifiers under radiation,” Results Phys., vol. 12, pp. 1805–1808, Mar. 2019.
[J17] V. Schaus, E. M. Alessi, G. Schettino, A. Rossi, and E. Stoll, “On the practical exploitation of perturbative effects in low Earth orbit for space debris mitigation,” Adv. Sp. Res., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1979–1991, Apr. 2019.
[J16] A. Horstmann et al., “Survey of the Current Activities in the Field of Modeling the Space Debris Environment at TU Braunschweig,” Aerospace, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 37, Apr. 2018.
[J15] B. Gundlach et al., “The tensile strength of ice and dust aggregates and its dependence on particle properties,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., vol. 479, no. 1, pp. 1273–1277, Sep. 2018.
[J14] A. Rossi et al., “ReDSHIFT: A Global Approach to Space Debris Mitigation,” Aerospace, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 64, Jun. 2018.
[J13] N. Gerdes et al., “Selective Laser Melting for processing of regolith in support of a lunar base,” J. Laser Appl., vol. 30, no. 3, p. 032018, Aug. 2018.
[J12] F. K. Chun et al., “A new global array of optical telescopes: The Falcon Telescope Network,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 2018.
[J11] M. K. Ben Larbi and E. Stoll, “Spacecraft formation control using analytical finite-duration approaches,” CEAS Sp. J., vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 63–77, Mar. 2018.
[J10] A. Lopez-Arreguin et al., “3D4 Space - Advanced Systems, Components, and Novel Methods for Planetary Exploration with Wheeled Mobile Robots,” J. Sp. Explor., vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–14, 2017.
[J09] J. Radtke, C. Kebschull, and E. Stoll, “Interactions of the space debris environment with mega constellations—Using the example of the OneWeb constellation,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 131, no. 2000, pp. 55–68, Feb. 2017.
[J08] C. Kebschull et al., “Simulation of the space debris environment in LEO using a simplified approach,” Adv. Sp. Res., vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 166–180, Jan. 2017.
[J07] J. Radtke and E. Stoll, “Comparing long-term projections of the space debris environment to real world data – Looking back to 1990,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 127, pp. 482–490, Oct. 2016.
[J06] E. Stoll, A. Brunn, K. Shahid, and A. Horstmann, “The optimization of memory management in Earth observation constellations,” Acta Astronaut., Dec. 2015.
[J05] E. Stoll, J. Letschnik, M. Wilde, A. Saenz-Otero, R. Varatharajoo, and J. Artigas, “The future role of relay satellites for orbital telerobotics,” Adv. Sp. Res., vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 864–880, 2012.
[J04] E. Stoll, S. Jaekel, J. Katz, A. Saenz-Otero, and R. Varatharajoo, “SPHERES interact-Human-machine interaction aboard the International Space Station,” J. F. Robot., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 554–575, Jul. 2012.
[J03] E. Stoll et al., “On-orbit servicing- Exploration and Manipulation Capabilities of Robots in Space,” IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 29–33, Dec. 2009.
[J02] J. Harder, E. Stoll, M. Schiffner, M. Pfeiffer, and U. Walter, “A compact, light-weight high data-rate antenna system for remote-sensing orbiters and space exploration,” Acta Astronaut., vol. 65, no. 11–12, pp. 1738–1744, 2009.
[J01] E. Stoll et al., “Ground verification of the feasibility of telepresent on-orbit servicing,” J. F. Robot., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 287–307, Mar. 2009.
[B2] E. Stoll, J. Letschnik, and C. Kebschull, “Ground-based satellite tracking,” in Nano-Satellites: Space and Ground Technologies, Operations and Economics, under review.
[B1] E. Stoll, A. Saenz-Otero, and B. Tweddle, “Multimodal Human Spacecraft Interaction in Remote Environments,” in Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol. 68, 2010, pp. 1–15.
[PR5] K. Höfner, A. Vahl, and E. Stoll, “Cost-Efficient Satellite Constellation Design by Network Reliability Analysis,” in RAMS - Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, Reno, USA, Jan. 2018.
[PR4] E. Stoll, B. D’Souza, B. B. Virgili, K. Merz, and H. Krag, “Operational collision avoidance of small satellite missions,” in IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, USA, Mar. 2013.
[PR3] E. Stoll, H. Konstanski, C. Anderson, K. Douglass, and M. Oxfort, “The RapidEye constellation and its data products,” in IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, USA, Mar. 2012.
[PR2] E. Stoll and A. Saenz-Otero, “The control of inspector satellites via relay satellites,” in IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, USA, Mar. 2012.
[PR1] E. Stoll and U. Walter, “Concept of an Algorithm to Determine the Signal Delay Time for Telepresence Space Applications,” in IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky; USA, Mar. 2006.
[C88] K. Höfner, A. Vahl, and E. Stoll, “Innovative Architecture Optimization Approach for Highly Reliable Satellite Attitude Control,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C87] C. Trentlage, E. Stoll, R. Hensel, R. Holzbauer, and A. Makaya, “Development of gecko-inspired adhesive materials for space applications,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C86] A. Rossi et al., “Results from the H2020 ReDSHIFT project: a global approach to space debris mitigation,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C85] S. Linke et al., “TUBS-M and TUBS-T - new lunar regolith simulants adaptable to local lunar surface characteristics,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C84] E. Stoll et al., “Towards Automated Constellation Management of Space Vehicles - Challenges and Approaches,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C83] C. Wiedemann et al., “Particle flux analysis with the updated MASTER model,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C82] B. Grzesik et al., “Integration of energy storage functionalities into a fiber reinforced spacecraft structures,” in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C81] A. Voß, S. Linke, and E. Stoll, “MIRA3D – a terrestrial robotic prototype for additive layer manufacturing of lunar regolith”, in International Astronautical Congress, Bremen, Germany, Oct. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C80] C. Trentlage, M. K. Ben Larbi, C. de alba-Padilla, J. Yang, and E. Stoll, “The ELISSA Laboratory: Free-Floating Satellites for Space-Related Research,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Friedrichshafen, Germany, Sep. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C79] S. Müller and E. Stoll, “Near-real-time Continuous Filtering of Sensor Measurements using Data Stream Management Systems,” in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies (AMOS) Conference, Maui, USA, Sep. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C78] J. Yang and E. Stoll, “Sliding Mode Control for Six Degrees-of-Freedom Spacecraft Proximity Operations Based on Dual Quaternions,” in AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference, Snowbird, USA, Aug. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C77] C. Trentlage and E. Stoll, “A Biomimetic Docking Device For Passively Flexible Attachment , Rigidization and Load Sharing for Handling Uncooperative Targets,” in IEEE International Conference on Advanced Robotics and Mechatronics, Singapore, Jul. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C76] K. Soggeberg, J. Radtke, C. Wiedemann, and E. Stoll, “Modelling a realistic possibility of future space debris evolution,” in Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Scientific Assembly, Pasadena, USA, Jul. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C75] C. Wiedemann et al., “The Validation of the MASTER Model,” in Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) Scientific Assembly, Pasadena, USA, Jul. 2018 (accepted for publication).
[C74] A. Voß, L. Kuhr, R. Freund, S. Linke, and E. Stoll, “Requirements for a Mobile Lunar Prototype for Additive Layer Manufacturing,” in International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Automation in Space (i-SAIRAS ), Madrid, Spain, Jun. 2018.
[C73] E. Stoll, C. de alba-Padilla, A. Tienken, and S. Rediske, “A highly redundant compact robot manipulator supporting orbital robotics on CubeSats,” in 4S Symposium on Small Satellites, Systems and Services, May 2018.
[C72] B. Grzesik, E. Stoll, J. De Wit, A. Dietz, and M. Doetz, “Manufacturing and preliminary testing of a scalable deployable ultra-lightweight space telescope,” in 4S Symposium on Small Satellites, Systems and Services, Sorrento, Italy, May 2018.
[C71] M. K. Ben Larbi, B. Grzesik, J. Radtke, C. Trentlage, and E. Stoll, “Active Debris Removal for Mega Constellations: CubeSat Possible?,” in International Workshop on Satellite Constellations and Formation Flying, Boulder, USA, Jun. 2017.
[C70] C. Wiedemann, E. Gamper, A. Horstmann, V. Braun, and E. Stoll, “The Contribution of NAK Droplets to the Space Debris Environment,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017, no. 1.
[C69] A. Rossi et al., “The H2020 Project ReDSHIFT: Overview, First Results and Perspectives,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C68] A. Horstmann and E. Stoll, “Investigation of Propagation Accuracy Effects within the Modeling of Space Debris,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C67] S. Müller, C. Kebschull, and E. Stoll, “Evaluation of Data Stream Management Systems in the Context of Space Surveillance and Tracking,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C66] S. Müller and E. Stoll, “Data Stream-Centric SST System Architecture Enhancement,” in IAA Conference on Space Situational Awareness, Orlando, USA, Nov. 2017.
[C65] H.-J. Zachrau, M. Becker, E. Stoll, I. Retat, D. Roascio, and D. Sternberg, “ISS Spheres Tehther Dynamics Experiments Evaluation of Tethered Actice Debris Removal Issues,” in ISS R&D Conference, Washington, USA, Jul. 2017.
[C64] K. Höfner, A. Vahl, and E. Stoll, “Satellite Architecture Optimization Adapted Reliabilty Analyses from Commercial Aviation,” in International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 2017.
[C63] C. Wiedemann, J. Radtke, J. Yang, and E. Stoll, “Considering Cost of De-Orbiting Maneuvers in Long-Term Scenarions,” in International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 2017.
[C62] J. Radtke, E. Stoll, H. Lewis, J. Beck, and B. B. Virgili, “To Launch or not to Launch - Responsibilities of Small Satellites for a Sustainable Space Environment,” in International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 2017.
[C61] A. J. R. López-Arreguín, B. Grzesik, and E. Stoll, “BeoCube: A CubeSat for a Laser Ranging Experiment,” in International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 2017.
[C60] B. Grzesik, P. Mindermann, E. Stoll, S. Linke, A. Dietz, and S. Frey, “Alignment mechanism and system concept of a deployable ultra-lightweight space telescope for a 1U CubeSat demonstrator,” in International Astronautical Congress, Adelaide, Australia, Sep. 2017.
[C59] C. Kebschull, L. Reichstein, and E. Stoll, “A Simulation Environment to Determine the Performance of SSA Systems,” in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies, AMOS, Maui, USA, Sep. 2017.
[C58] E. Stoll, S. Hesselbach, S. Linke, A. J. R. López-arreguín, and J. Block, “Towards a long-term Lunar Environment Observatory,” in IAA Symposium on the Future of Space Exploration, Turin, Italy, Jun. 2017.
[C57] C. Wiedemann, E. Gamper, A. Horstmann, V. Braun, and E. Stoll, “Der aktuelle Beitrag der NAK Tropfen zum Weltraummüll,” in Deutscher Luft- und raumfahrtkongress, DLRK, Munich, Germany, Sep. 2017.
[C56] C. de alba-Padilla, C. Trentlage, and E. Stoll, “Vision based robot control for grasping space applications using gecko material,” in Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, ASTRA, Leiden, The Netherlands, Jun. 2017, no. 1.
[C55] A. Horstmann, E. Stoll, and H. Krag, “A Validation Method of ESA’s MASTER 1 cm Population in Low Earth Orbit,” in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies, AMOS, Maui, USA, Sep. 2017.
[C54] C. Trentlage, T. Stelzer, E. Stoll, and D. Roascio, “Capture Capability Eenhancement of a Grasping device for Typical ADR Targets Through Biomimetic Dry Adhesives,” in Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, ASTRA, Leiden, The Netherlands, Jun. 2017.
[C53] E. Stoll, P. Mindermann, B. Grzesik, S. Linke, A. Dietz, and S. Frey, “OCULUS - Optical Coatings for Ultra Lightweight Robust Spacecraft Structures,” in IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, Berlin, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C52] J. Radtke, E. Stoll, H. Lewis, and B. B. Virgili, “The Impact of the Increase in Small Satellite Launch Traffic on the Long-Term Evolution of the Space Debris Environment,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C51] V. Schaus et al., “Results if the Long-Term Simulations on Passive Means to Reduce the Impact of Space Debris,” in European Conference on Space Debris, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2017.
[C50] M. Becker, E. Stoll, and I. Retat, “Tether force transmission capabilities for applications at Active Debris Removal Missions,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico, Sep. 2016.
[C49] J. Becker, B. Grefen, and E. Stoll, “Results of the Leonis Project and Launch Campaign Within the STERN Programme,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C48] M. Becker, E. Stoll, and I. Retat, “Tether Dynamics Toolbox – Simulation of Tethered Space Systems in Active Debris Removal Missions,” in AIAA Space 2016, Long Beach, USA, Jun. 2016.
[C47] T. Jusko and E. Stoll, “Scalable Trajectory Optimization Based on Bézier Curves,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C46] V. Braun, H. Klinkrad, and E. Stoll, “Orbit information of predetermined accuracy and its sharing in the SST context,” in AIAA Space 2016, Long Beach, USA, Jun. 2016.
[C45] C. Wiedemann, E. Gamper, A. Horstmann, V. Braun, and E. Stoll, “Analyse Möglicher Partikeleinschläge Auf Die Reaktoren Der Satelliten Kosmos 1818 Und 1867,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C44] M. K. Ben Larbi and E. Stoll, “Spacecraft formation control using analytical integration of Gauss’ variational equations,” in International Conference on Astrodynamics Tools and Techniques, Darmstadt, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C43] B. Grzesik, U. Bestmann, and E. Stoll, “BEOcube - a platform for flexible precise orbit determination,” in 4S Symposium on Small Satellites, Systems and Services, Valetta, Malta, May 2016.
[C42] C. Trentlage, P. Mindermann, M. K. Ben Larbi, and E. Stoll, “Development and Test of an Adaptable Docking Mechanism Based on Mushroom-Shaped Adhesive Microstructures,” in AIAA SPACE 2016, Long Beach, USA, Sep. 2016.
[C41] M. K. Ben Larbi, B. Grzesik, C. Trentlage, J. Yang, K. Höfner, and E. Stoll, “Algorithm and Technology Development for Active Debris Removal At the Institute of Space Systems,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C40] C. Wiedemann, J. Lorenz, J. Radtke, C. Kebschull, A. Horstmann, and E. Stoll, “Space debris - modeling and detectability,” in International Symposium on High Power Laser Systems and Application, Gmunden, Austria, Sep. 2016.
[C39] C. Wiedemann, E. Gamper, A. Horstmann, V. Braun, and E. Stoll, “Release of liquid metal droplets from Cosmos 1818 and 1867,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico, Sep. 2016.
[C38] M. Möckel, J. Bennett, E. Stoll, and K. Zhang, “High Performance Orbital Propagation Using a Generic Software Architecture,” in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies, AMOS, Maui, USA, Sep. 2016.
[C37] K. Soggeberg, M. Becker, and E. Stoll, “Analyse und Beschreibung der Taumelbewegung von Raketenoberstufen infolge der Inhomogenität des. Erdgravitationsfeldes,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C36] B. Grzesik, E. Farahvashi, M. K. Ben Larbi, C. Trentlage, and E. Stoll, “QuSAD – An Interactive Space Mission Analysis, Design, and Simulation Toolkit,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico, Sep. 2016.
[C35] M. K. Ben Larbi, M. Luttmann, B. Grzesik, C. Trentlage, and E. Stoll, “Far Range Formation Flight With High Risk Debris in Low Earth Orbit Using Relative Orbital Elements,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Guadalajara, Mexico, Sep. 2016.
[C34] J. Streffing, B. Grzesik, and E. Stoll, “Auswirkung von Faltung auf gedruckte Leiterbahnen und Einsetzbarkeit in entfaltbaren Strukturen für CubeSat Missionen,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2016.
[C33] A. Horstmann, C. Wiedemann, E. Stoll, V. Braun, and H. Krag, “Introducing upcoming Enhancements of ESA ’s MASTER,” in AIAA Space 2016, Long Beach, USA, Sep. 2016.
[C32] M. Becker, I. Retat, and E. Stoll, “Active Debris Removal mittels flexiblen Verbindungen: Analyse des Einflusses von Bahnstörungen auf das Gesamtsystem,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Rostock, Germany, Sep. 2015.
[C31] M. Becker, I. Retat, and E. Stoll, “Determination and Influence of the Ballsitic Coefficient on Tethered Space Systems for Active Debris Removal Missions,” in International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, Sep. 2015.
[C30] C. Wiedemann, M. Möckel, J. Radtke, and E. Stoll, “The Cost-Effectiveness of Post-Mission Disposal Maneuvers,” in International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, Sep. 2015.
[C29] M. Becker, E. Stoll, and I. Retat, “Influence of orbital perturbations on tethered space systems for active debris removal missions,” in AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, California, Aug. 2015.
[C28] C. Trentlage and E. Stoll, “The Applicability of Gecko Adhesives in a Docking Mechanism for Active Debris Removal Missions,” in Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation, ASTRA, Nordwijk, Netherlands, May 2015.
[C27] C. Wiedemann, A. Horstmann, C. Kebschull, S. Flegel, and E. Stoll, “Die Auswirkung vorsätzlich herbeigeführter Fragmentationsereignisse auf die Weltraummüllumgebung,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Rostock, Germany, Sep. 2015.
[C26] E. Stoll, C. Trentlage, and M. Becker, “The use of biologically inspired gecko material for active debris removal of high priority objects,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Rostock, Germany, Sep. 2015.
[C25] C. Kebschull, V. Braun, and E. Stoll, “Determining the Influence on Orbit Prediction Based on Uncertainties in Atmospheric Models,” in International Astronautical Congress, Jerusalem, Israel, Sep. 2015.
[C24] C. Kebschull et al., “Entwicklung eines Messwertgenerators zur Simulation von Sensornetzwerken,” in Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Rostock, Germany, Sep. 2015.
[C23] H. Enke, J. Letschnik, E. Stoll, and U. Walter, “Satellite Based Search and Rescue Operations Handling using Multi-Sensor UAV,” in Global Space Applications Conference, Paris, France, Jun. 2014.
[C22] E. Stoll, K. Shahid, E. Paasche, and M. Apel, “The Sustainability of the RapidEye Remote Sensing Constellation,” in 4S Symposium on Small Satellites, Systems and Services, Porto Petro, Spain, May 2014, pp. 233–239.
[C21] E. Stoll and K. Shahid, “The Impact of Attitude Control System Agility on the Acquisition Capacity of Remote Sensing Constellations,” in International Astronautical Congress, Toronto, Canada, Sep. 2014.
[C20] H. Enke, J. Letschnik, and E. Stoll, “Satellite-based Services and Products in Support of Disaster Management,” in Global Space Applications Conference, Paris, France, Jun. 2014.
[C19] H. Konstanski, E. Stoll, B. D. Souza, and M. Oxfort, “Four years of operating RapidEye satellites - Continuous performance improvement and adaptation to customer needs and markets,” in IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, Berlin, Germany, 2013.
[C18] E. Stoll, K. Merz, H. Krag, B. D. Souza, and B. B. Virgili, “Collision Probability Assessment for the Rapideye Satellite Constellation,” in Space Debris Conference, Darmstadt, Germany, Apr. 2013.
[C17] J. Letschnik, E. Stoll, H. Enke, and U. Walter, “End-To-End Measurement Environment for an Electrical Steerable Ka-Band Inter-Satellite Link Antenna,” in International Astronautical Congress, Naples, Italy, Sep. 2012.
[C16] E. Stoll, “Integrating Advanced Calibration Techniques into Routine Spacecraft Operations,” in SpaceOps 2012 Conference, Reston, Virigina, Jun. 2012.
[C15] E. Stoll, R. Schulze, B. D. Souza, and M. Oxfort, “The impact of collision avoidance maneuvers on satellite constellation management,” in Space Surveillance Conference, Madrid, Spain, Jun. 2011.
[C14] E. Stoll, B. D. Souza, H. Konstanski, and M. Oxfort, “2 Years of Operating the RapidEye Constellation – an Evolving Mission Concept and Lessons Learned,” in IAA Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, Berlin, Germany, Apr. 2011.
[C13] E. Stoll and D. Kwon, “The benefit of multimodal telepresence for in-space robotic assembly,” in IASTED International Conference on Robotics and Applications, Cambridge, USA, Nov. 2009, pp. 36–43.
[C12] E. Stoll, M. Wilde, and C. Pong, “Using Virtual Reality for Human-Assisted In-Space Robotic Assembly,” in World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science 2009, Berkeley, USA, Oct. 2009.
[C11] E. Stoll, J. Letschnik, U. Walter, J. Artigas, and H. Pongrac, “A Test Environment to Demonstrate the Feasibility of Telepresent On-Orbit Servicing,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Glasogow, Scotland, Sep. 2008.
[C10] M. Pietras, S. Ivars, E. Stoll, and M. Wilde, “Concept of a Generic Test Environment for Advanced Spacecraft Systems,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Glasogow, Scotland, Sep. 2008.
[C9] E. Stoll, J. Letschnik, and U. Walter, “On-Ground Testing the Link Maintenance of a Two Degree of Freedom Inter Satellite Link Antenna,” in International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, Seoul, Korea, Jun. 2007.
[C8] E. Stoll and U. Walter, “Test environment for time delay measurements of space links via ARTEMIS,” in ESA International Workshop on Tracking , Telemetry and Command Systems for Space Applications, Darmstadt, Germany, Sep. 2007, no. September.
[C7] E. Stoll, J. Letschnik, U. Walter, S. Clarke, and M. F. Zaeh, “A ground station based test environment for telepresent small satellites,” in Symposium on Small Satellites for Earth Observation, Berlin, Germany, Apr. 2007.
[C6] J. Letschnik, E. Stoll, M. Czech, and U. Walter, “Concept of a Low-cost Satellite Attitude Control Simulator based on an Antenna Turntable,” in European Telemetry Conference, Garmisch, Germany, Mar. 2006.
[C5] J. Letschnik, E. Stoll, M. Czech, and U. Walter, “A Monitoring and Control Tool for pre-optimization of data signal delay in telepresence satellite missions,” in International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, San Diego, USA, Jun. 2006, no. June.
[C4] J. Letschnik, E. Stoll, U. Walter, J. Dallat, and C. Knauer, “The concurrent configuration of a TMTC software during the Satellite Life Cycle,” in SpaceOps, Rome, Italy, Jun. 2006.
[C3] M. Czech, E. Stoll, and U. Walter, “Development of a low cost, medium accurate 2-axes pointing mechanism for small satellites,” in DGLR Jahrestagung, Braunschweig, Germany, Sep. 2006.
[C2] R. Lundin and E. Stoll, “Coverage Time Variation in a Near-Earth Data Relay Satellite System,” in International Astronautical Congress, IAC, Valencia, Spain, Sep. 2006.
[C1] E. Stoll, M. Czech, and U. Walter, “Construction and Realization of a Low-Cost Satellite Attitude Simulator Concept,” in International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, San Diego, USA, Jun. 2006.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.


text:
Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. v. AMD Global Telemedicine, Inc.
Damages expert; calculated reasonable royalty damages for Rule 26 report.
Revolutions Medical Corp. v. Andrew Goddard, et al.
Damages expert; Rule 26 report with lost profits analysis.
Economic expert; provided multi-factor economic analysis in quantifying a reasonable royalty rate and economic damages.
Clinical Innovations, LLC. v. Tyco Healthcare Group, LP, et al.
Economic expert; quantified lost profit and reasonable royalty damages for Rule 26.
Andrx Pharmaceutical, LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, et al.
Economic expert; calculated damages resulting from patent infringement for Rule 26 report.
Andrx Therapeutics,Inc. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
Economic expert; economic and market analysis.
Gary M. Kawesch, MD, Inc. v. Antoine L. Garabet, MD.
Economic expert; provided economic analysis to quantify lost profit damages and unjust enrichment.
Smile, Inc. Asia PTE Ltd. v. BriteSmile Management Inc., et al.
Economic expert; provided valuation of trademarks in rule 26 report.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


text:
Metalsmithing & Jewelry can be as freely experimental as any art form. The workshop and studio experiences in this program emphasize design and craftsmanship.
Metalsmithing students explore avenues of expression and techniques. Students learn basic metalsmithing techniques such as sawing, filing, piercing, forging, forming, fusing, soldering and casting. Materials most often used include copper, brass, nickel, silver, silver and gold.
In addition to creating jewelry, there are many opportunities for students to incorporate metalsmithing processes and materials into their work in other areas, including Functional Design/Wood, Sculpture and Surface Design.
Facilities the metals studio has 1,749 square feet of studio space, with 24 hour access. The area includes individual studio spaces for students with an emphasis in the discipline.
Jeanne Beaver is an Assistant Professor of Metalsmithing. She received her MFA from Indiana University and her MA from Iowa State University.
ART 309 Introduction to Metalsmithing I (3). Metals in jewelry-making, hollowware, small sculpture, and object-making with an emphasis on design and craftsmanship. Six hours per week. Prerequisites: ART 101 and 112 or permission of instructor.
ART 311 Metalsmithing II (3). Introduction to several casting techniques as well as a continuation of skills learned in ART 309. Six hours per week. Prerequisite: ART 309 or permission of instructor.
ART 312 Metalsmithing III (3). Advanced problems in metalsmithing with an emphasis in ideation and conceptualization of content. Six hours per week Prerequisite: ART 311 or permission of instructor.
ART 411 Metalsmithing IV (3). Advanced problems in metalsmithing. Six hours per week. Prerequisite: ART 312 or permission of instructor.
ART 412 Metalsmithing V (3). Use of metals in jewelry-making, holloware, small sculpture, and/or objectmaking. Six hours per week. Prerequisite: ART 411 or permission of instructor.
ART 511 Metalsmithing VI (3). A concentrated exploration of the use of metals in jewelry-making and holloware. Six hours per week. Prerequisite: two courses in metalsmithing or permission of instructor.
ART 512 Metalsmithing VII (3). Continuation of ART 511. Six hours per week. Prerequisite: ART 511 or permission of instructor.

matches:
ART 309
ART 101
ART 311
ART 309
ART 309
ART 312
ART 311
ART 411
ART 312
ART 412
ART 411
ART 511
ART 512
ART 511
ART 511