text:
A device and method for detecting lighting conditions to enable brightness control of a display are disclosed. The device includes a display and a first photodiode array to detect light in a visible spectrum and a non-visible spectrum that is incident on the first photodiode array. The device also includes a second photodiode array to detect light in the non-visible spectrum that is incident on the second photodiode array, and a processor to determine the lighting conditions based on a first output of the first photodiode array and a second output of the second photodiode array. The processor adjusts the first output used to determine the lighting conditions based on detecting that the first photodiode array includes a shadowed region, and controls the brightness of the display based on the lighting conditions.
In various applications, the accurate detection of lighting conditions may be helpful. For example, most computation and communication devices such as smart phones, laptop computers, tablets, and the like, include a display. Exemplary displays may be comprised of a liquid crystal display (LCD) or organic light-emitting diodes (OLED). Because these devices may be used in different lighting conditions, the display brightness must be adjusted based on detected lighting conditions. If the display is to dim in bright conditions, it may be unreadable. Conversely, if the display is too bright for the ambient conditions, it may be uncomfortable to view. Thus, by determining the lighting conditions, the display brightness may be adjusted so as to allow a good user experience while minimizing power usage.
In an exemplary device, ambient light sensors comprise arrays of photodiodes that detect visible and infrared light (IR), and photodiodes that detect only IR light. These are utilized to determine the incident light intensity (illuminance) so that the brightness of the display can be properly adjusted. Since the ambient light sensors are typically disposed within the device, it is possible for certain incident angles of light to introduce errors into the illuminance determination due to shadowing. This effect is most pronounced when the device is used in the sun, or in dark rooms with incandescent lighting, and can cause the brightness control software to make the display too dark.
FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary device configured to perform detection of lighting conditions according to embodiments discussed herein.
As noted above, detection of lighting conditions may be used in various applications. For example, the brightness, contrast, or both of a device display must be adjusted as lighting conditions under which the display is being viewed change. Otherwise, for example, the display will be too dim to be clearly visible or too bright to be seen comfortably. Brightness control may be achieved differently depending on the display technology used. For example, brightness-setting methods include backlighting of LCD panels with light sources behind the display and direct control of pixel intensity of OLED panels. The two related aspects of adjusting the display brightness are detecting the current lighting conditions and adjusting the display accordingly. When the detection is inaccurate for any reason, the adjustment may be compromised. For example, if the display is dimmed too much in bright lighting conditions or made too bright in dark conditions, the user experience of the user of the device suffers. Embodiments of the system and method described herein address a source of inaccuracy in detecting the current lighting conditions.
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a cross-sectional view of a device 100. While the view shown in FIG. 1 focuses on an aspect of the device 100, the device 100 may include other components (see, e.g., FIG. 4). The device 100 may be a tablet, laptop computer, smart phone, music player, storage device, and the like. The device 100 includes a housing 140. A sensor 110 within the housing 140 under a window 120 includes a first photodiode array 115 and a second photodiode array 117. The sensor 110 is an ambient light sensor that senses the available light conditions in which the device 100 is operating. Each of the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117 detects light that is incident on the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117, respectively, and outputs a photodiode light intensity measurement. This measurement may be a voltage or current that is proportional to the detected incident light. The measurement may also be a digital code based on converting the voltage or current using one or more analog-to-digital converters. The analog-to-digital conversion may be achieved within the sensor 110 directly or outside of the sensor within the device 100. The measurement may further be a count of photon arrival occurrences. The detected light is within a specific spectrum for each of the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117. In the embodiment detailed herein, the first photodiode array 115 detects incident light in the visible spectrum and also in the infrared (IR) spectrum, and the second photodiode array 117 detects incident light in the IR spectrum only. In alternate embodiments, the first photodiode array 115 may detect incident light in the visible spectrum and another non-visible spectrum other than the IR spectrum, and the second photodiode array 117 may detect incident light in the other non-visible spectrum as well. As detailed with reference to FIG. 2, the non-visible spectrum detected by the first photodiode array 115 must be the same non-visible spectrum detected by the second photodiode array 117 in order to accurately detect the lighting conditions.
FIG. 1 depicts incident light rays 130 at an angle that results in a shadowed region 135 of the first photodiode array 115. That is, due to the angle of incident light rays 130 and the placement of the first photodiode array 115 within the housing 140, a portion of the first photodiode array 115 (in the shadowed region 135) does not receive any of the incident light rays 130 and, therefore, does not contribute to the output current or voltage. This leads to a lower output response from the first photodiode array 115 (an output that is not proportional to the true lighting condition) than if the shadowed region 135 did not exist (e.g., when the light rays 130 have a different angle of incidence). The effect of the shadowed region 135 on the accurate detection of lighting conditions is detailed with reference to FIG. 2.
K1 and K2 are weighting factors and output1 and output2 are the photodiode light intensity measurements from the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117, respectively. The weighting factors K1 and K2 may be based on the device 100 and additionally or alternately on the ratio of output2 (the output of the IR-only second photodiode array 117) to output1 (the output of the visible and IR first photodiode array 115). The values of K1 and K2 may be determined by a calibration process, for example. The values of K1 and K2 are calibrated to account for the difference between the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117 such that the IR portion of the first photodiode array 115 output is subtracted out by subtracting the second photodiode array 117 output. As noted above, the photodiode light intensity measurement from the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117 may be in the form of a current, a voltage, a digital code, or a photon count, for example. Thus, the values of K1 and K2 may reflect a conversion in addition to the weighting. That is, for example, when the photodiode light intensity measurement is provided as a voltage, K1 and K2 may have a unit of lux per voltage so that the illuminance (I) resulting from EQ. 1 is in units of lux.
As EQ. 1 makes clear, when the shadowed region 135 prevents output1 from being as high a value as it should be (were it not for the shadowing effect caused by the angle of incidence of the light rays 130), the illuminance determined by EQ. 1 may be artificially low or even a negative value (depending on the size of the shadowed region 135 and the value of factors K1 and K2). If the angle of incidence of the light rays 130 were different than the angle shown in FIG. 1, such that the shadowed region 135 were on the second photodiode array 117 rather than on the first photodiode array 115, then the IR-only detected incident light (output2 in EQ. 1) would be lower than it should be. While this condition would prevent all of the IR contribution from being subtracted out based on EQ. 1 (because the IR level detected by the first photodiode array 115 would be greater than the IR level detected by the second photodiode array 117), a negative value would not result for the illuminance (as shown by EQ. 1). The focus of the method described with reference to FIG. 2 is on the shadowed region 135 being on the first photodiode array 115 rather than on the second photodiode array 117.
When this ratio is greater than a threshold ratio (because the first photodiode array 115 output and, thus, the illuminance calculation is artificially low due to the shadowed region 135), shadowing may be indicated. The threshold ratio may be selected based on the device as well as output2. Additionally, shadowing may be indicated when the second photodiode array 117 output (converted to lux, for example) exceeds an IR signal threshold. The IR signal threshold may be checked if the threshold ratio is exceeded. When shadowing is not detected, the illuminance computed at block 210 is provided as the illuminance value, at block 250, that may be used to adjust the display brightness, for example. In addition, the illuminance computed at block 210 is provided at block 225 as the last-known good illuminance. This value is used at block 240, as described below, the next time that a shadowed region 135 is detected on the first photodiode array 115. When shadowing is detected, an artificial illuminance is computed at block 230.
The artificial ratio may be determined through calibration, for example. EQ. 1 is then used again to determine an artificial illuminance using artificial output1 and output2. When K1 and K2 are not based only on the device, K1 and K2 may be re-selected to determine the artificial illuminance (using EQ. 1) based on the artificial ratio.
At block 240, determining the illuminance value to be provided (block 250) is based on the artificial illuminance and includes using either a linear or a non-linear combination of the last-known good illuminance value (computed at block 210 and stored at block 225) and the artificial illuminance (determined at block 230). According to one embodiment, the illuminance value that is provided at block 250 may be determined at block 240 as the maximum of the last-known good illuminance value or the artificial illuminance value.
FIG. 3 is a block diagram of the sensor 110 of the device 100 of FIG. 1 according to an exemplary embodiment. The sensor 110 is arranged below a window 120 and includes the first photodiode array 115 and the second photodiode array 117 as shown in FIG. 1. The sensor 110 may also include one or more processors 310 and one or more memory devices 320. The processor 310 (e.g., application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), microprocessor) may execute instructions stored in the memory device 320 to compute illuminance and the other values (e.g., ratio, artificial output1) discussed above. The memory device 320 may also include the threshold values, artificial ratio values, and K1 and K2 values discussed above. In alternate embodiments, the processing described above to determine the illuminance value to be provided for adjustment of the display in the window 305, for example, may be done by one or more processors (e.g., 401, FIG. 4) and memory devices (e.g., 402, FIG. 4) of the device 100 that also perform other device functions.
FIG. 4 is a block diagram of an exemplary device 100 configured to perform detection of lighting conditions according to embodiments discussed above with reference to FIG. 2. While various components of the device 100 are depicted, alternate embodiments of the device 100 may include a subset of the components shown or include additional components not shown in FIG. 4. The device 100 includes a general purpose digital signal processor or DSP 401 and a memory 402. The DSP 401 and memory 402 may provide, in part or in whole, the functionality of the processor 310 and memory device 320 of the sensor 110 discussed above. As shown, the device 100 may further include an antenna and front-end unit 403, a radio frequency (RF) transceiver 404, an analog baseband processing unit 405, a microphone 406, an earpiece speaker 407, a headset port 408, a bus 409, such as a system bus or an input/output (I/O) interface bus, a removable memory card 410, a universal serial bus (USB) port 411, an alert 412, a keypad 413, a short range wireless communication sub-system 414, a liquid crystal display (LCD) 415, which may include a touch sensitive surface, an LCD controller 416, a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera 417, a camera controller 418, and a global positioning system (GPS) sensor 419, and a power management module 420 operably coupled to a power storage unit, such as a battery 426. In various embodiments, the device 100 may include another kind of display that does not provide a touch sensitive screen. In one embodiment, the DSP 401 communicates directly with the memory 402 without passing through the input/output interface (“Bus”) 409.
In various embodiments, the DSP 401 or some other form of controller or central processing unit (CPU) operates to control the various components of the device 100 in accordance with embedded software or firmware stored in memory 402 or stored in memory contained within the DSP 401 itself. In addition to the embedded software or firmware, the DSP 401 may execute other applications stored in the memory 402 or made available via information media such as portable data storage media like the removable memory card 410 or via wired or wireless network communications. The application software may comprise a compiled set of machine-readable instructions that configure the DSP 401 to provide the desired functionality, or the application software may be high-level software instructions to be processed by an interpreter or compiler to indirectly configure the DSP 401.
The antenna and front-end unit 403 may be provided to convert between wireless signals and electrical signals, enabling the device 100 to send and receive information from a cellular network or some other available wireless communications network or from a peer device 100. In an embodiment, the antenna and front-end unit 403 may include multiple antennas to support beam forming and/or multiple input multiple output (MIMO) operations. As is known to those skilled in the art, MIMO operations may provide spatial diversity, which can be used to overcome difficult channel conditions or to increase channel throughput. Likewise, the antenna and front-end unit 403 may include antenna tuning or impedance matching components, RF power amplifiers, or low noise amplifiers.
In various embodiments, the RF transceiver 404 facilitates frequency shifting, converting received RF signals to baseband and converting baseband transmit signals to RF. In some descriptions a radio transceiver or RF transceiver may be understood to include other signal processing functionality such as modulation/demodulation, coding/decoding, interleaving/deinterleaving, spreading/despreading, inverse fast Fourier transforming (IFFT)/fast Fourier transforming (FFT), cyclic prefix appending/removal, and other signal processing functions. For the purposes of clarity, the description here separates the description of this signal processing from the RF and/or radio stage and conceptually allocates that signal processing to the analog baseband processing unit 405 or the DSP 401 or other central processing unit. In some embodiments, the RF Transceiver 404, portions of the antenna and front-end unit 403, and the analog base band processing unit 405 may be combined in one or more processing units and/or application specific integrated circuits (ASICs).
Note that, in this diagram, the radio access technology (RAT) RAT1 and RAT2 transceivers 421, 422, the IXRF 423, the IRSL 424 and Multi-RAT subsystem 425 are operably coupled to the RF transceiver 404 and analog baseband processing unit 405 and then also coupled to the antenna and front-end unit 403 via the RF transceiver 404. As there may be multiple RAT transceivers, there will typically be multiple antennas or front ends 403 or RF transceivers 404, one for each RAT or band of operation.
The analog baseband processing unit 405 may provide various analog processing of inputs and outputs for the RF transceivers 404 and the speech interfaces (406, 407, 408). For example, the analog baseband processing unit 405 receives inputs from the microphone 406 and the headset 408 and provides outputs to the earpiece 407 and the headset 408. To that end, the analog baseband processing unit 405 may have ports for connecting to the built-in microphone 406 and the earpiece speaker 407 that enable the device 100 to be used as a cell phone. The analog baseband processing unit 405 may further include a port for connecting to a headset or other hands-free microphone and speaker configuration. The analog baseband processing unit 405 may provide digital-to-analog conversion in one signal direction and analog-to-digital conversion in the opposing signal direction. In various embodiments, at least some of the functionality of the analog baseband processing unit 405 may be provided by digital processing components, for example by the DSP 401 or by other central processing units.
The DSP 401 may perform modulation/demodulation, coding/decoding, interleaving/deinterleaving, spreading/despreading, inverse fast Fourier transforming (IFFT)/fast Fourier transforming (FFT), cyclic prefix appending/removal, and other signal processing functions associated with wireless communications. In an embodiment, for example in a code division multiple access (CDMA) technology application, for a transmitter function the DSP 401 may perform modulation, coding, interleaving, and spreading, and for a receiver function the DSP 401 may perform despreading, deinterleaving, decoding, and demodulation. In another embodiment, for example in an orthogonal frequency division multiplex access (OFDMA) technology application, for the transmitter function the DSP 401 may perform modulation, coding, interleaving, inverse fast Fourier transforming, and cyclic prefix appending, and for a receiver function the DSP 401 may perform cyclic prefix removal, fast Fourier transforming, deinterleaving, decoding, and demodulation. In other wireless technology applications, yet other signal processing functions and combinations of signal processing functions may be performed by the DSP 401.
The DSP 401 may communicate with a wireless network via the analog baseband processing unit 405. In some embodiments, the communication may provide Internet connectivity, enabling a user to gain access to content on the Internet and to send and receive e-mail or text messages. The input/output interface (“Bus”) 409 interconnects the DSP 401 and various memories and interfaces. The memory 402 and the removable memory card 410 may provide software and data to configure the operation of the DSP 401. Among the interfaces may be the USB interface 411 and the short range wireless communication sub-system 414. The USB interface 411 may be used to charge the device 100 and may also enable the device 100 to function as a peripheral device to exchange information with a personal computer or other computer system. The short range wireless communication sub-system 414 may include an infrared port, a Bluetooth interface, an IEEE 802.11 compliant wireless interface, or any other short range wireless communication sub-system, which may enable the device to communicate wirelessly with other nearby client nodes and access nodes. The short-range wireless communication sub-system 414 may also include suitable RF Transceiver, Antenna and Front End subsystems.
The input/output interface (“Bus”) 409 may further connect the DSP 401 to the alert 412 that, when triggered, causes the device 100 to provide a notice to the user, for example, by ringing, playing a melody, or vibrating. The alert 412 may serve as a mechanism for alerting the user to any of various events such as an incoming call, a new text message, and an appointment reminder by silently vibrating, or by playing a specific pre-assigned melody for a particular caller.
The keypad 413 couples to the DSP 401 via the I/O interface (“Bus”) 409 to provide one mechanism for the user to make selections, enter information, and otherwise provide input to the device 100. The keypad 413 may be a full or reduced alphanumeric keyboard such as QWERTY, DVORAK, AZERTY and sequential types, or a traditional numeric keypad with alphabet letters associated with a telephone keypad. The input keys may likewise include a track wheel, track pad, an exit or escape key, a trackball, and other navigational or functional keys, which may be inwardly depressed to provide further input function. Another input mechanism may be the LCD 415, which may include touch screen capability and also display text and/or graphics to the user. The display controller 416 couples the DSP 401 to the display 415. In alternate embodiments, the display 415 may be, for example, an LED or an OLED built-in display in the device 100.
The camera 417 (e.g., CMOS camera), if equipped, enables the device 100 to make digital pictures. The DSP 401 communicates with the camera 417 via the camera controller 418. In another embodiment, a camera implemented as a Charge Coupled Device (CCD) camera may be employed. The GPS sensor 419 is coupled to the DSP 401 to decode global positioning system signals or other navigational signals, thereby enabling the device 100 to determine its position. The GPS sensor 419 may be coupled to an antenna and front end (not shown) suitable for its band of operation. Various other peripherals may also be included to provide additional functions, such as radio and television reception.
In various embodiments, device 100 comprises a first Radio Access Technology (RAT) transceiver 421 and a second RAT transceiver 422. As shown in FIG. 4, the RAT transceivers ‘1’ 421 and ‘2’ 422 are in turn coupled to a multi-RAT communications subsystem 425 by an Inter-RAT Supervisory Layer Module 424. In turn, the multi-RAT communications subsystem 425 is operably coupled to the Bus 409. Optionally, the respective radio protocol layers of the first Radio Access Technology (RAT) transceiver 421 and the second RAT transceiver 422 are operably coupled to one another through an Inter-RAT eXchange Function (IRXF) Module 423.
a processor configured to determine lighting conditions and to control brightness of the display based on a first output of the first photodiode array and a second output of the second photodiode array, the processor adjusting the first output used to determine the lighting conditions based on detecting that the first photodiode array includes a shadowed region.
2. The device according to claim 1, wherein the first output is proportional to the light in the visible spectrum and the non-visible spectrum that is incident on the first photodiode array and the second output is proportional to the light in the non-visible spectrum that is incident on the second photodiode array.
3. The device according to claim 1, wherein the processor determines a difference between the first output and the second output, the difference being based on a subtraction of the second output from the first output.
4. The device according to claim 3, wherein the difference is the subtraction of the second output, multiplied by a second factor, from the first output, multiplied by a first factor, the first factor and the second factor being determined based on a calibration.
5. The device according to claim 3, wherein the processor detects that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region based on the difference being zero or a negative value.
6. The device according to claim 3, wherein the processor determines an illuminance in lumens per square meter (lux) based on the difference between the first output and the second output and outputs the illuminance as the lighting conditions unless the processor detects that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region.
7. The device according to claim 6, wherein the processor detects that the first photo diode array includes the shadowed region based on a ratio of the second output to the illuminance exceeding a ratio threshold.
8. The device according to claim 7, wherein the processor detects that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region based additionally on the second output exceeding an output threshold.
9. The device according to claim 1, wherein the processor adjusts the first output used to determine the lighting conditions to be a ratio of the second output to an artificial ratio, the artificial ratio being determined based on a calibration.
adjusting the first output used to determine the lighting conditions based on detecting that the first photodiode array includes a shadowed region.
adjusting, using the processor, the first output used to determine the lighting conditions based on detecting that the first photodiode array includes a shadowed region.
12. The method according to claim 11, wherein the first output is proportional to the light in the visible spectrum and the non-visible spectrum that is incident on the first photodiode array and the second output is proportional to the light in the non-visible spectrum that is incident on the second photodiode array.
13. The method according to claim 11, further comprising the processor determining a difference between the first output and the second output, the difference being based on a subtraction of the second output from the first output.
14. The method according to claim 13, wherein the processor determines the difference as the subtraction of the second output, multiplied by a second factor, from the first output, multiplied by a first factor, the first factor and the second factor being determined based on a factor calibration process.
15. The method according to claim 13, further comprising the processor detecting that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region based on the difference being zero or a negative value.
16. The method according to claim 13, further comprising the processor determining an illuminance in lumens per square meter (lux) based on the difference between the first output and the second output and outputting the illuminance as the lighting conditions unless the processor detects that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region.
17. The method according to claim 16, further comprising the processor detecting that the first photo diode array includes the shadowed region based on a ratio of the second output to the illuminance exceeding a ratio threshold.
18. The method according to claim 17, further comprising the processor detecting that the first photodiode array includes the shadowed region based additionally on the second output exceeding an output threshold.
19. The method according to claim 11, wherein the processor adjusting the first output includes the processor setting the first output as a ratio of the second output to an artificial ratio.
20. The method according to claim 19, further comprising determining the artificial ratio based on a ratio calibration process.
Advisory Action dated Jun. 8, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/937,444, filed Jul. 9, 2013; 6 pages.
Advisory Action dated Sep. 10, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,271, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 3 pages.
Cheng, Heng-Tze, et al.; "Contactless Gesture Recognition System Using Proximity Sensors"; Carnegie Mellon University; http://repository.cmu.edu/silicon-valley/17/; 2010; 2 pages.
EE Times; "Ambient Light Sensors Adjust LCD Brightness to Save Battery Power"; http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc-id=1302779&print=yes; Dec. 26, 2006; 2 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174557.2; Dec. 13, 2013; 7 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174558.0; Jan. 3, 2014; 10 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174560.6; Jan. 3, 2014; 10 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174561.4; Jan. 3, 2014; 8 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174565.5; Dec. 6, 2013; 7 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174575.4; Jan. 3, 2014; 9 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174576.2; Jan. 3, 2014; 12 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13174577.0; Dec. 13, 2013; 8 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 13175807.0; Jan. 15, 2014; 7 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 14178207.8; Dec. 23, 2014; 6 pages.
European Extended Search Report; Application No. 14183709.6; Jan. 26, 2015; 7 pages.
Final Office Action dated Aug. 21, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/949,727, filed Jul. 24, 2013; 17 pages.
Final Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,271, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 34 pages.
Final Office Action dated Jun. 5, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,243 filed Jul. 1, 2013; 10 pages.
Final Office Action dated Mar. 31, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/937,444, filed Jul. 9, 2013; 20 pages.
Final Office Action dated Mar. 4, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,260, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 55 pages.
Final Office Action dated Sep. 8, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,243, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 14 pages.
Holenarsipur, Prashanth, et al.; "Ambient-Light Sensing Optimizes Visibility and Battery Life of Portable Displays"; Maxim; Application Note 5051; Jun. 20, 2011; 7 pages.
Liao, Chunyuan, et al.; "PACER: Fine-grained Interactive Paper via Camera-touch Hybrid Gestures on a Cell Phone"; CHI 2010: Displays Where You Least Expet Them; Atlanta, GA, USA; Apr. 10-15, 2010; 10 pages.
Mankowski, Peter, et al., U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,271, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Display Navigation Using Tough-Less Gestures.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,235, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Performance Control of Ambient Light Sensors.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,470, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Gesture Detection Using Ambient Light Sensors.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,487, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Gesture Detection Using Ambient Light Sensors.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/937,444, filed Jul. 9, 2013; Title: Operating a Device Using Touchless and Touchscreen Gestures.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/949,727, filed Jul. 24, 2013; Title: Backlight for Touchless Gesture Detection.
Mankowski, Peter, et al.; U.S. Appl. No. 13/949,748, filed Jul. 24, 2013; Title: Backlight for Touchless Gesture Detection.
Mankowski, Peter, U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,260, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Camera Control Using Ambient Light Sensors.
Mankowski, Peter; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,243, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Password by Touch-Less Gesture.
Mankowski, Peter; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,250, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Touch-Less User Interface Using Ambient Light Sensors.
Mankowski, Peter; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,280, filed Jul. 1, 2013; Title: Alarm Operation by Touch-Less Gesture.
Notice of Allowance dated Sep. 29, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,487, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 16 pages.
Office Action dated Apr. 14, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/949,727, filed Jul. 24, 2013; 44 pages.
Office Action dated Dec. 15, 2014; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,243, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 29 pages.
Office Action dated Jul. 27, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,260, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 70 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 11, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,250, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 53 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 18, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,235, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 41 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 2, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,487, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 47 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 29, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,280, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 45 pages.
Office Action dated Jun. 30, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,470, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 51 pages.
Office Action dated May 14, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/949,748, filed Jul. 24, 2013; 50 pages.
Office Action dated Nov. 20, 2014; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,271, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 35 pages.
Office Action dated Oct. 29, 2014; U.S. Appl. No. 13/937,444, filed Jul. 9, 2013; 28 pages.
Office Action dated Oct. 9, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,280, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 13 pages.
Office Action dated Sep. 18, 2015; U.S. Appl. No. 13/937,444, filed Jul. 9, 2013; 18 pages.
Office Action dated Sep. 3, 2014; U.S. Appl. No. 13/932,260, filed Jul. 1, 2013; 48 pages.
Pyreos, "Low Power Gester Sensor Enabling Touchless Control for Mobile Devices" [online]; retrieved Jun. 6, 2013; retrieved from http://www.pyreos.com/images/downloads/Applications/Touchless%20Gesture%20Control/Gesture%20Sensor%20FAQs.pdf pp. 1-2.
Pyreos; "Pioneering Low Power Gesture Sensor Enabling Touchless Control for Mobile Devices"; http://www.pyreos.com/images/downloads/Applications/Touchless%20Gesture%20Control/Gesture%20Sensor%20FAQs.pdf; Jun. 27, 2013; 2 pages.
Rohm Semiconductor; "Ambient Light Sensor (ALS) Applications in Portable Electronics"; http://www.rohm.com/documents/11303/41217/CNA09016-wp.pdf; Jul. 24, 2013; 9 pages.
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.; "Touchless Gesturing Brings New Innovation to Electronic Product Designs"; http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/TouchlessSensorIC-WP.pdf; Jun. 27, 2013; 4 pages.
Silicon Labs, "Touchless Gesturing Brings New Innovation to Electronic Product Designs" [online]; retrieved Jun. 27, 2013; retrieved from http://www.silabs.com/Support%20Documents/TechnicalDocs/TouchlessSensorIC-WP.pdf pp. 1-4.
Taos, "Light-to-Digital Converter" The Lumenology Company, Taos132, Mar. 2012, pp. 1-24.
Taos, Inc.; "Light-To-Digital Converter"; TSL2572; The Lumenology Company; Mar. 2012; 24 pages.

matches:
Application No. 13174557
Application No. 13174558
Application No. 13174560
Application No. 13174561
Application No. 13174565
Application No. 13174575
Application No. 13174576
Application No. 13174577
Application No. 13175807
Application No. 14178207
Application No. 14183709


text:
We process your data only and insofar as this is permitted by national and European legal regulations. The legal grounds on which processing are carried out can be seen in the following explanations. We also explain to you why we process your data and in which situations/regarding which services.
Your data will be stored until the purpose of storage no longer applies. In some cases, European or national regulations, laws or other regulations or contracts to which we are subject prescribe a longer or shorter storage period. The data will then be deleted at the end of this period. Further details can be found in the following explanations.
The data is stored as long as it is necessary to achieve the purpose for its collection. If data is required for the functionality of the website, this data will be deleted after the respective session has ended.
If the aforementioned data is stored for a longer period, however, your IP address will be deleted or alienated in this case. The collection of data for the provision of the website and the storage of data in log files is absolutely necessary for the operation of the website.
With your consent you can subscribe to our newsletter on our websites, with which we inform you about product updates and latest news about Silexica.
In general, we use the so-called double-opt-in procedure if you want to register for our newsletter. This means that after your registration we will send you an e-mail to your provided e-mail address, in which we ask you to confirm that you indeed wish to receive the newsletter. If you do not confirm your registration within 24 hours, your information will be blocked and automatically deleted after one month. In addition, we store your date of registration and confirmation. The purpose of this procedure is to prove your registration and, if necessary, to clarify a possible misuse of your personal data.
The legal ground for processing data in this regard is Article 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR. Furthermore, processing your data is required for pre-contractual obligations, hence Article 6 para. 1 b) and f) GDPR serve as an additional legal basis because the processing of your data is necessary to provide you with the newsletter.
You can revoke your consent to receive the newsletter at any time and unsubscribe from the newsletter. You can declare your revocation by clicking on the link provided in each newsletter e-mail, by e-mail to privacy@silexica.com or by sending a message to the contact details given in the imprint.
Please notice that we evaluate your user behaviour when sending the newsletter. For this evaluation, the e-mails sent contain so-called web beacons or tracking pixels, which represent one-pixel image files stored on our website. For the evaluations we link the data that we processed and the web beacons with your e-mail address. With the obtained data, we create a user profile in order to tailor the newsletter to your individual interests.
We record if and when you read our newsletters, which links you clicked and deduce your personal interests from these information. The data will be processed by our contractual service partner (for further information please see Chapter 5 below). We link this data to actions taken by you on our website.
The legal basis for data processing in this respect is Art. 6 para. 1 lit a GDPR. The processing of other data (e.g. connection data) during the sending process should prevent misuse of the contact form and guarantee the security of our information technology systems. The legal basis in this respect is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR. Regarding the processing of your data through sending us an email the legal basis is also Article 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR, as we have a legitimate interest to process these data. We process personal data from emails as well as from the contact form exclusively for the treatment of the establishment of contact. The data will not be passed on to third parties in this respect with the exception of Silexica group companies for internal administrative purposes. We have ensured an adequate level of data protection with these companies by concluding and adhering to standard contractual clauses. The data is used exclusively for correspondence. If the establishment of contact is in connection with the conclusion of a contract, Article 6 para. 1 lit. b GDPR is additionally the legal ground for the processing.
After signing, we will inform you about new blogs on our website by e -mail. Insofar as the collection and processing of the data is based on your consent, Article 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR is the legal basis. Since the processing of your data is also necessary in order to inform you, Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR also serves as a legal basis.
Your data will be deleted as soon as it is no longer necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was collected. Data collected and processed in the context of the blog information service is required as long as you have not unsubscribed from the function.
You can revoke the consent given to us at any time. In this case, we will delete all data collected in connection with the blog information service. This does not apply if statutory retention periods require further storage or processing by us.
You may also sign in for more information about Silexica and its product updates. If you do so, you will receive on a regular basis information about us.
Insofar as the collection and processing of the data is based on your consent, Article 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR is the legal basis. Since the processing of your data is also necessary in order to inform you, Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR also serves as a legal basis.
You can revoke the consent given to us at any time. In this case, we will delete all data collected in connection with the product information service. This does not apply if statutory retention periods require further storage or processing by us.
Most of the cookies we use are so-called technically required cookies, which are necessary to keep your visit consistent, i.e. to ensure that e.g. saved search queries are retained during the web session. In addition, we need these cookies to ensure that a specific offer that you have clicked on is assigned to your request (e.g. in the case of promotional offers). These cookies are automatically deleted at the end of the session.
The legal basis for the use of technically necessary cookies is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR. The legitimate interest is that the availability of the website as well as a large number of services could not be realized without the setting of these cookies.
Cookies with a lifetime of no longer than one year are used to store search queries via the notepad function and to carry out user tests and user surveys, which are then automatically deleted.
This website uses analyzing cookies from various third-party providers. These cookies are used to analyze your surfing behavior. This data is not stored together with your other personal data.
For these purposes, the processing of your personal data is justified by an explicit consent pursuant to Art. 6 para. 1 lit. a GDPR. Further information about the individual providers can be found in the following explanations.
We use Google Analytics only with the enabled IP anonymization configuration to ensure an anonymized collection of IP addresses (so called IP-masking). This means that your IP address will be anonymized by Google within member states of the European Union or in other signatory states to the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Only in exceptional cases will the full IP address be transmitted to a Google server in the USA and shortened there.). The IP address transmitted by your browser is not merged with other Google data. Google may also transfer this information to third parties if this is required by law or if third parties process this data on behalf of Google.
http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/ (“Determine which advertising Google shows you”).
As an alternative to the browser add-on or mobile device browser, please use the respective opt-out option indicated in the table below to prevent Google Analytics from collecting data on this website in the future. An opt-out cookie is stored on your device as a result. It stores that we may not delete your data for Google Analytics. If you delete your saved cookies, you must click this link again.
We also use Google Analytics to evaluate data from AdWords and the double-click cookie for statistical purposes. If you do not want this to happen, you can disable it using the Ads Preferences Manager.
Google complies with the privacy provisions of the US Privacy Shield Agreement with the EU and is registered with the US Department of Commerce’s Privacy Shield Program. Google only transmits the data to third parties within the framework of legal regulations or within the framework of order processing. Google will not combine the collected data with other data collected by Google.
Our website uses Hotjar. This name refers to an analysis software of Hotjar Ltd. You can reach the website via http://www.hotjar.com. The company is based in 3 Lyons Range- 20 Bisazza Street- Sliema SLM 1640 in Malta.
The software enables us to analyse the usage behaviour of our visitors by measuring and evaluating clicks, mouse movements and the like on our website. The information that a tracking code and cookies collect is transmitted to the Hotjar server. This information is primarily device-related data such as the IP address of your device and your e-mail address with your first and last name, provided that you have provided us with this information. The screen size of your device, the device type and browser information such as type and version, your geographical location and your preferred language are also recorded. Typical log file data such as the domain, pages visited, access date and time are also recorded via Hotjar. The software uses this data for evaluation and may make use of other services from third party providers such as Google Analytics and others. These service providers can also process and store corresponding user data.
Cookie Name Description hjClosedSurveyInvites This cookie is set once a visitor interacts with a Survey invitation model pop-up.
It is used to ensure that the same invite does not re-appear if it has already been shown. _hjDonePolls This cookie is set once a visitor completes a Poll using the Feedback Poll widget.
that the widget stays minimized when the visitor navigates through your site. _hjDoneTestersWidgets This cookie is set once a visitor submits their information in the Recruit User Testers widget.
is used to generate Heatmaps, Funnels, Recordings, etc.
You can use the link to prevent Hotjar from collecting and using your data. Please also note the separate privacy statements of other service providers such as Google Analytics in this privacy statement.
On this website we use HubSpot for our online marketing activities. HubSpot is a software company from the USA with a branch in Ireland. Contact: HubSpot, 2nd Floor 30 North Wall Quay, Dublin 1, Ireland, phone: +353 1 5187500.
The legal basis for the use of this service is Art. 6 para. 1 lit. f GDPR. Our legitimate interest in the use of this service is the optimization of our marketing measures. HubSpot is certified under the terms of the EU – U.S. Privacy Shield Framework and is subject to the TRUSTe’s Privacy Seal and the U.S. – Swiss Safe Harbor Framework.
If you generally do not want HubSpot to collect data, you can prevent cookies from being stored at any time by changing your browser settings or by using the respective opt-out option indicated in the table below.
whether automated decision-making, including profiling in accordance with Article 22(1) and (4) GDPR, takes place and, if so, meaningful information on the logic involved and the scope and intended effects of such processing on you.
When personal data is transferred to a third country or an international organization, you have the right to be informed about appropriate safeguards to ensure that the recipients are also in compliance with the provisions of the GDPR.
You can request us to correct any incorrect data concerning you without delay. Taking into account the purposes of the processing, you also have the right to request the completion of incomplete personal data – also by means of a supplementary declaration.
We are obliged to inform all recipients to whom your data have been disclosed about a correction or deletion of your data or a restriction of the processing. This shall not apply if it is impossible or involves a disproportionate effort. We will inform you about these recipients if they so request.
On our websites, your data is not subject of decisions made exclusively on the basis of automated processing (e.g. profiling). You have the right not to be subject to a decision based exclusively on automated processing – including profiling – if this has legal effect against you or significantly impairs it in a similar manner.
You have the right to complain to a supervisory authority, in particular in the Member State where you are staying, working or suspected of having infringed the basic Regulation on data protection, if you consider that the processing of data concerning you is contrary to it. Other administrative or judicial remedies that you may be entitled to remain unaffected.

matches:
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6
Art. 6


text:
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") deems it appropriate that public administrative proceedings be instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against Benjamin C. Snyder ("Snyder" or "Respondent").
In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Snyder has submitted an Offer of Settlement ("Offer") to the Commission, which the Commission has determined to accept. Solely for the purpose of these proceedings, and any other proceedings brought by or on behalf of the Commission or to which the Commission is a party, Snyder, without admitting or denying the findings contained herein, except that Respondent admits to the Commission's jurisdiction over him and over the subject matter of these proceedings, consents to the issuance of this Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order ("Order").
On May 13, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. EST, Respondent, Benjamin C. Snyder, a 17-year old high school student of Lawrenceville, Georgia, purchased 785 shares of thinly traded Viragen International, Inc. ("Viragen") common stock via an online brokerage account that Respondent's father, a Lawrenceville minister, had opened for him a month earlier. Respondent purchased the Viragen stock at $0.60 at a total cost of $480.99. The trade was the only Viragen transaction reported for that trading day.
Plantation, Florida May 13 (Bloomberg) -- A small bio-research company called Viragen International Inc. (VGNI.OB) has discovered an effective anthrax treatment called Vivox. It's a two-part intramuscular injection for the treatment of both inhalation and cutaneous anthrax. The first injection is given right after the diagnoses of anthrax, which prevents the bacteria's ability to replicate. The second is then given two days later, which kills the remaining anthrax spores.
Viragen submitted a new drug application to the FDA two months ago, and was just approved last week. The FDA wanted to keep Vivox a secret until mass production because testing involved the use of live anthrax spores, which would have caused unnecessary anxiety for the general public in the area.
The treatment is suitable for the elderly, unlike Cipro, and further results will tell whether it is suitable for children. Viragen has recently signed a contract to supply the United States military with Vivox. It has been reported that hospitals across the U.S. have already placed over 4 million orders collectively. Viragen International CEO Gerald Smith had to say, "We are very pleased with the results of Vivox, and hope it becomes a major ally in the war on anthrax." Vivox will be featured on ABC-World News Tonight this week. As publicity around Vivox increases, so will share price. It is now expected to multiply 6-7 times, giving shareholders a potential gold mine.
Respondent purposefully made the posts from a computer terminal located at the Lawrenceville Branch of the Gwinnett County (GA) Public Library to conceal his identity and avoid detection. Respondent made the fictitious posts in an effort to increase artificially Viragen's share price and profit by selling the 785 Viragen shares he previously purchased.
However, on May 14, 2002, a mere 20 shares of Viragen stock traded at $0.55. Thus, Respondent returned to the Lawrenceville library on May 15, 2002, and re-posted the blatantly false Bloomberg story on several Raging Bull message boards after his original posts did not appear to have an effect on Viragen's share price. Viragen stock was inactive on May 15, 2002. In addition to concocting the phony Bloomberg story, Respondent lied in the Raging Bull postings about his own position in Viragen stock, stating that he had "no position" in Viragen stock, when in fact, Respondent owned 785 shares.
Both of Respondent's efforts to artificially inflate the price of Viragen's stock failed. On May 16, 2002, Viragen's stock traded 9, 000 shares at approximately $0.60. On May 17, 2002, at approximately 3:00 p.m., the SEC staff contacted the Respondent who confessed fully to his scheme as set forth in these findings. The Respondent's father subsequently liquidated the account.
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder proscribe the making of materially false or misleading statements in connection with the purchase or sale of any security. False statements about a public company are "in connection with" the purchase or sale of a security when they are made in a manner "reasonably calculated" to influence the investing public. SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d 833, 860-862 (2nd Cir. 1968) (en banc), cert. denied sub nom. Coates v. SEC, 394 U.S. 976 (1969). A fact is material if there is a "substantial likelihood that the . . . fact would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the `total mix' of information made available." TSC Industries v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976); see also Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). In addition to establishing the "in connection with" and "materiality" requirements for liability under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, scienter is also required for a violation of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Aaron v. SEC, 446 U.S. 680, 691 (1980). The Supreme Court defines scienter as "a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud." Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 193 n.12 (1976). Recklessness satisfies the scienter requirement. Rolf v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 44 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978); SEC v. Blavin, 760 F.2d 706, 711 (6th Cir. 1985).
Snyder's statements were blatantly false, were posted on several active Internet message boards dedicated to investor discussions, and were presented in the form of a Bloomberg article attributed to an actual Bloomberg reporter. In addition, Snyder attempted to evade detection and conceal his identity by posting his messages, under an alias, from a public computer terminal at a public library. Further, Snyder asserted in certain of his postings that he had no position in Viragen stock, when in reality he owned 785 shares. Finally, the claims contained in the bogus Bloomberg article - that Viragen's share price was "expected to multiply 6-7 times" as a result of receiving FDA approval for a secretly developed and tested "effective anthrax cure" - were material and were designed to induce prospective investors to purchase Viragen stock.
Based on the above-described conduct, the Commission finds that Snyder violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate to accept Snyder's Offer and to impose the Cease-and-Desist Order specified therein.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act, Snyder cease and desist from committing or causing any violation, and any future violation, of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

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


text:
M. Abramovici, P. A. Bradley, P. L. Levin, and G. Memmi, Integrated circuit with autonomous power management, 2006.
L. Benini, A. Bogliolo, and G. Micheli, A survey of design techniques for system-level dynamic power management. IEEE Trans. on very large-scale integration (VLSI) SYSTEMS, pp.299-316, 2000.
C. Bennett, The thermodynamics of computation???a review, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol.25, issue.No. 5, pp.12-905, 1982.
M. K. Berhe, Ergonomic Temperature Limits for Handheld Electronic Devices, ASME 2007 InterPACK Conference, Volume 2, pp.1041-1047, 2007.
S. Biswas, M. Tiwari, T. Sherwood, L. Theogaraja, and F. Chong, Fighting fire with fire: Modeling the datacenter-scale effects of targeted superlattice thermal management, Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2011 38 th Annual International Symposium on, pp.331-340, 2011.
A. Carroll and G. Heiser, An analysis of power consumption in a smartphone, Proceedings of the USENIX conference on USENIX, 2010.
Y. Cengel and A. Ghajar, Heat and Mass Transfer: Fundamentals and Applications, 2010.
Y. Cho and N. Chang, Energy-aware clock-frequency assignment in microprocessors and memory devices for dynamic voltage scaling. Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol.26, issue.6, pp.1030-1040, 2006.
A. Cohen, F. Finkelstein, A. Mendelson, R. Ronen, and D. Rudoy, On Estimating Optimal Performance of CPU Dynamic Thermal Management, IEEE Computer Architecture Letters, vol.2, issue.1, p.1, 2003.
K. D. Vogeleer, G. Memmi, P. Jouvelot, and F. Coelho, The Energy/Frequency Convexity Rule: Modeling and Experimental Validation on Mobile Devices, Proceedings of the 10 th Conference on Parallel Processing and Applied Mathematics, 2013.
K. D. Vogeleer, G. Memmi, and P. Jouvelot, Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of the Energy/Frequency Convexity Rule for Application Processors J. of Sustainable Computing, Informatics and Systems, Elsevier B.V, vol.15, pp.16-27, 2017.
K. D. Vogeleer, G. Memmi, P. Jouvelot, and F. Coelho, Modeling the temperature bias of power consumption for nanometer-scale cpus in application processors, XIV th International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling, and Simulation, pp.172-180, 2014.
K. and D. Vogeleer, La loi de convexité énergie-fréquence de la consommation des programmes: modélisation, thermosensibilité et applications, Thèse Télécom ParisTech, 2015.
D. Duarte, G. Geannopoulos, U. Mughal, K. Wong, and G. Taylor, Temperature Sensor Design in a High Volume Manufacturing 65nm CMOS Digital Process, 2007 IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference, pp.221-224, 2007.
H. Esmaeilzadeh, T. Cao, X. Yang, S. M. Blackburn, and K. S. Mckinley, Looking back and looking forward, Communications of the ACM, vol.55, issue.7, pp.105-114, 2012.
H. Esmaeilzadeh, T. Cao, X. Yang, S. M. Blackburn, and K. S. Mckinley, What is Happening to Power, Performance, and Software?, IEEE Micro, vol.32, issue.3, p.3, 2012.
X. Fan, C. S. Ellis, and A. R. Lebeck, The Synergy Between Power-Aware Memory Systems and Processor Voltage Scaling, Proceedings of the Third international conference on Power -Aware Computer Systems, pp.164-179, 2004.
A. Ferre and J. Figueras, Characterization of leakage power in CMOS technologies, 1998 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Circuits and Systems. Surfing the Waves of Science and Technology (Cat. No.98EX196), pp.185-188, 1998.
D. Ferreira, A. Dey, and V. Kostakos, Understanding Human-Smartphone Concerns: A Study of Battery Life, LNCS, vol.6696, pp.19-33, 2011.
V. W. Freeh, D. K. Lowenthal, F. Pan, N. Kappiah, R. Springer et al., Analyzing the Energy-Time Trade-Off in High-Performance Computing Applications, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, vol.18, issue.6, pp.6-835, 2007.
G. Hager, J. Treibig, J. Habich, and G. Wellein, Exploring performance and power properties of modern multicore chips via simple machine models, p.2908, 1208.
H. Hanson, S. Keckler, S. Ghiasi, K. Rajamani, F. Rawson et al., Thermal response to DVFS, Proceedings of the 2007 international symposium on Low power electronics and design, ISLPED '07, pp.219-224, 2007.
V. Hanumaiah and S. Vrudhula, Reliability-aware thermal management for hard real-time applications on multi-core processors, 2011 Design, Automation & Test in Europe, pp.1-6, 2011.
V. Hanumaiah and S. Vrudhula, Temperature-Aware DVFS for Hard Real-Time Applications on Multicore Processors, IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol.61, issue.10, pp.1484-1494, 2012.
H. Umahashi, K. Masuda, S. Usami, H. Takeda, M. Nakamura et al., Geyser-1: a MIPS R3000 CPU core with fine-grained run-time power gating, ASP-DAC, pp.369-370, 2010.
J. Kong, S. W. Chung, and K. Skadron, Recent thermal management techniques for microprocessors, ACM Computing Surveys, vol.44, issue.3, pp.1-13, 2012.
P. Lall, M. Pecht, and E. Hakim, Influence of Temperature on Microelectronics and System Reliability: A Physics of Failure Approach. The electronic packaging series, 1997.
E. , L. Sueur, and G. Heiser, Dynamic voltage and frequency scaling: the laws of diminishing returns, Proc. of the 2010 Int. Conf. on Power aware computing and system HotPower'10, pp.1-8, 2010.
W. Liao, J. M. Basile, and L. , He: Leakage power modeling and reduction with data retention, Proc. of the, pp.714-719, 2002.
W. Liao, L. He, and K. M. Lepak, Temperature and supply voltage aware performance and power modeling at microarchitecture level, IEEE Trans. Comp.-Aided Des. Integ. Cir. Sys, vol.247, pp.1042-1053, 2006.
R. M. Mcgowen, C. Poirier, C. Bostak, J. Ignowski, M. Millican et al., Power and Temperature Control on a 90-nm Itanium Family Processor, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol.41, issue.1, pp.1-229, 2006.
F. Mesa-martinez, M. Brown, J. Nayfach-battilana, and J. Renau, Measuring power and temperature from real processors, 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, pp.1-5, 2008.
F. Rezzi, L. Collamati, M. Costagliol, and M. Cutrupi, Battery Management in Mobile Devices, Frequency References, Power Management for SoC, and Smart Wireless Interfaces, pp.147-168, 2014.
S. Sarangi, G. Ananthanarayanan, and M. Balakrishnan, LightSim: A leakage aware ultrafast temperature simulator, 2014 19th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC), pp.855-860, 2014.
V. Seeker, P. Petoumenos, H. Leather, and B. , Franke: Measuring QOE of interactive workloads and characterising frequency governors on mobile devices, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Workload Characterization, pp.61-70, 2014.
E. Senn, J. Laurent, N. Julien, and E. Martin, SoftExplorer: Estimating and Optimizing the Power and Energy Consumption of a C Program for DSP Applications, EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing, vol.2005, issue.16, pp.16-2641, 2005.
M. Seok, D. Jeon, C. Chakrabarti, D. Blaauw, and D. Sylvester, Pipeline strategy for improving optimal energy efficiency in ultra-low voltage design, Proceedings of the 48th Design Automation Conference on, DAC '11, pp.990-995, 2011.
T. Simunic, L. Benini, and G. Micheli, Cycle-accurate simulation of energy consumption in embedded systems, Proceedings 1999 Design Automation Conference (Cat. No. 99CH36361), pp.867-872, 1999.
K. Singh, M. Bhadauria, and S. A. Mckee, Real time power estimation and thread scheduling via performance counters, ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News, vol.37, issue.2, pp.46-55, 2009.
A. Sinha and A. P. Chandrakasan, JouleTrack, Proceedings of the 38th conference on Design automation , DAC '01, pp.220-225, 2001.
D. Snowdon, S. Ruocco, and G. Heiser, Power management and dynamic voltage scaling: Myths and facts, WS Power Aware Real-time Comput, 2005.
H. Su, F. Liu, A. Devgan, E. Acar, and S. Nassif, Full chip leakage estimation considering power supply and temperature variations, Proceedings of the 2003 international symposium on Low power electronics and design , ISLPED '03, pp.78-83, 2003.
N. Vallina-rodriguez and J. Cowcroft, Energy Management Techniques in Modern Mobile Handsets, IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol.15, issue.1, pp.179-198, 2013.
K. R. Vaddina, F. Brandner, G. Memmi, and P. Jouvelot, Experimental Energy Profiling of Energy- Critical Embedded Applications, IEEE SoftCom'17, 2017.
R. Viswanath, V. Wakharkar, A. Watwe, and V. Lebonheur, Thermal performance challenges from silicon to systems, Intel Technology Journal, pp.3-4, 2000.
A. Weissel and F. Bellosa, Dynamic thermal management for distributed systems, Proc. of the First Workshop on Temperature-Aware Computer Systems (TACS'04), 2004.
Y. You, C. Lee, and J. K. Lee, Compiler Analysis and Supports for Leakage Power Reduction on Microprocessors, Proceedings of the 15 th international conference on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing LCPC'02, pp.45-60, 2005.
T. Yuki and S. Rajopadhye, Folklore Confirmed: Compiling for Speed $$=$$ Compiling for Energy, Proc. of the 26 th International Workshop on Languages and Compilers for Parallel Computing, 2013.
F. Zanini, F. Atienza, C. N. Jones, L. Benini, and G. Micheli, Online thermal control methods for multiprocessor systems, ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems, vol.18, issue.1, pp.1-6, 2013.

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


text:
Though the merger of CVS and Aetna received conditional approval from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division back in October, the road to final approval has been rocky as the court’s exasperation with the parties appears to grow. Last week, Judge Richard J. Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Antitrust Division to respond to public comment on the merger by February 15, 2019—notwithstanding the fact that appropriations to the Antitrust Division lapsed on January 4, leaving the Division without funding.
After two hearings over the last week, Judge Richard J. Leon of the District Court for the District of Columbia seems to have put the brakes on the well-publicized merger between health care giants CVS and Aetna. The merger obtained conditional approval from the DOJ’s Antitrust Division on October 10, 2018, and the parties seemed poised for court approval when they appeared before Judge Leon on November 29, 2018.
On March 16, 2018, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division Makan Delrahim gave a speech at the University of Pennsylvania Law School titled “The ‘New Madison’ Approach to Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law.” The speech provided insight concerning his views on the role of antitrust law in the field of intellectual property, and the Antitrust Division’s priorities under his leadership. AAG Delrahim explained four basic premises that govern how he believes antitrust enforcement should impact intellectual property law; in short, his view is that patent rights are a boon to consumers and competition and antitrust law should not stand in the way of patent-holders exercising their rights.
Last month, we reported on a partial settlement in an antitrust case alleging that entities within the Duke and the University of North Carolina systems agreed not to hire each other’s medical personnel unless the lateral hire involved a promotion. The Court has now granted in part the plaintiff’s motion to certify a class.
This blog has discussed some of the dynamics created by the Supreme Court’s Hanover Shoe and Illinois Brick decisions and state “repealer” laws that attempt to undo their effect. As it turns out, repealer states aren’t the only ones skeptical of these twin cases that in general prevent indirect purchasers from asserting antitrust damages claims and defendants from relying on a “pass-on” defense.
Duke and UNC: Cooperation Off the Basketball Court?
As the college basketball season heats up, bitter rivals Duke and the University of North Carolina stand accused of maintaining a cozier (and illegal) relationship off the court. UNC, the UNC School of Medicine, and the UNC Health Care System (together the “UNC Defendants”) recently entered into a settlement agreement with a class of individuals employed by the UNC Defendants or of Duke-affiliated defendants (“the Duke Defendants”) between 2012 and 2017 to resolve an action alleging that the Duke Defendants and UNC Defendants agreed not to hire each other’s medical personnel unless the lateral hire involved a promotion. The settlement enjoins the UNC Defendants from agreeing to refrain from soliciting, hiring, or otherwise “poaching” employees of any other company or organization.
For several years, the Antitrust Division’s investigations have been increasingly global in scope. Acting Assistant Attorney General Andrew Finch made clear that trend will continue in remarks at a conference on International Antitrust Law and Policy held in New York earlier this month.
The Department of Justice Antitrust Division recently announced that California-based Custom Wristbands Inc. (d/b/a Kulayful Silicone Bracelets, Kulayful.com, Speedywristbands.com, Promotionalbands.com, Wristbandcreations.com, and 1inchbracelets.com) (“Custom Wristbands”) and its top executive Christopher Angeles agreed to plead guilty for conspiring to fix prices for wristbands and other customized novelty products sold online.
As we noted last month, the FTC has recently been voicing concerns about potentially anticompetitive actions of state professional licensing boards. Our post also discussed the scope of such boards’ immunity from antitrust liability under the Supreme Court’s caselaw.
Who Listens When Congress Holds a Hearing on a Proposed Merger?
Last week, a Rhode Island Congressman published a letter he sent to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee requesting that the committee hold a hearing on the recently-announced Amazon-Whole Foods merger. This post explores when and why Congress holds hearings on particular mergers and what power Congress has to stop a merger.
Last month, the FTC staff sent a letter warning North Carolina’s General Assembly that a pending bill regarding the state’s real estate appraisal board could run afoul of competitive principles. The staff notes that it is prepared to investigate and recommend challenges to potentially anticompetitive actions by state appraisal boards. However, in light of Supreme Court precedent on state sovereign immunity, it is not certain that the FTC could successfully challenge state board actions with which it disagrees.
Last Monday, the court denied Qualcomm, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the Federal Trade Commission’s suit against it for allegedly using anticompetitive tactics to maintain a monopoly in baseband modem chips for cell phones. The FTC contends that Qualcomm is using its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to extract monopoly prices from cell phone and other cellular device manufacturers in violation of its commitment to license its patents on a “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) basis.
European competition authorities announced this week an investigation into Aspen Pharmacare’s recent price hikes of five cancer drugs. The European Commission said in a press release that it had “information indicating that Aspen has imposed very significant and unjustified price increases of up to several hundred percent.” The Commission is also looking into reports that the South African-based generic drug-maker withdrew or threatened to withdraw the drugs from countries that would not accept these price hikes. If the investigation demonstrates that Aspen abused its alleged dominant market position to increase prices, the Commission could order fines of up to 10 percent of the company’s yearly revenue.
D.C. Circuit Affirms Decision Enjoining Anthem-Cigna Merger; Will the Supreme Court Weigh In?
In a split decision, on April 28, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to issue a permanent injunction blocking the merger of Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp., two of the nation’s largest health insurance providers. As we’ve previously written, in July 2016, the Department of Justice and attorneys general from multiple states sued to halt the merger pursuant to Section 7 of the Clayton Act, alleging that it would substantially lessen competition in the market for employers purchasing insurance for more than 5,000 employees ( “national accounts”) in multiple states and employers purchasing insurance for more than 50 employees (“large group employers”) in Richmond, Virginia. After a six-week bench trial, the district court enjoined the merger on the basis of its likely substantial anticompetitive effects in both markets.
The Antitrust Division recently issued its 2017 annual spring update.
The update emphasizes the Division’s recent litigation victories, particularly in the merger context. In his introductory remarks, Assistant Attorney General Brett Snyder noted the Division’s litigation docket is more active—on both the civil and criminal sides—than it has been in recent years.
“SMARTER” Act Advances in Congress: Will It Become Law?
For the third straight legislative session, the House Judiciary Committee has voted in favor of a bill—the Standard Merger and Acquisition Reviews Through Equal Rules (“SMARTER”) Act—that would amend the Clayton Act and Federal Trade Commission Act to align the standards and processes for the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) and Department of Justice’s (DOJ) review of proposed mergers and acquisitions. The SMARTER Act aims to eliminate the current differences in merger review that companies may face depending on whether the proposed merger is reviewed by the DOJ or the FTC.
The incentive is high to identify a Sherman Act violation in your competitor’s conduct—three times higher, to be precise, than to bring a claim for an ordinary business tort or even a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act. But as we noted in December, the Fifth Circuit recently refused to recognize a claim for attempted monopolization under Section 2 based on a defendant’s false advertising “absent a demonstration that [the] false advertisements had the potential to eliminate, or did in fact eliminate, competition.” The court relied on a prior decision in which it expressed “extreme reluctance to allow a treble damage verdict to rest upon business torts alone.” The case is Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co.
Media outlets have reported that the U.S. Department of Justice raided the maritime industry’s “Box Club” meeting, which is more formally known as the meeting of the International Council of Containership Operators. Box Club meetings include the CEOs of all major container lines, and even though the meeting locations are not publicly disclosed, the DOJ managed to serve subpoenas in mid-March at the San Francisco meeting, including top executives at A.P. Moller-Maersk, Evergreen, the Orient Overseas Container Line, and Hapag Lloyd. Notably, the subpoena recipients are not U.S.-based companies—the DOJ may have used the Box Club meeting as an opportunity to exercise its subpoena power over foreign entities.
Since we last reported on the state and federal government’s generic drug pricing investigations and litigations (click here to read more), the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has obtained its first guilty pleas. On January 9, 2017, Heritage Pharmaceutical Inc.’s former CEO and its former president (the defendants are brothers-in-law) pleaded guilty to manipulating the prices of and divvying up customers for an antibiotic, doxycycline hyclate, and a diabetes medicine, glyburide. The defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on September 28, 2017, and they face up to ten years of imprisonment. The government’s filings in other lawsuits make clear that the defendants’ sentencing was delayed until the defendants complete their cooperation with the government.
In the past month, the DOJ and several state governments scored two trial wins in their challenges to mergers among some of the country’s largest health insurers. First, Judge Bates of the District of Columbia blocked the combination of Aetna and Humana, finding that the “proffered efficiencies do not offset the anticompetitive effects of the merger.” Weeks later, Judge Jackson of the same district scuttled a deal between Anthem and Cigna, which she found “likely to lessen competition substantially” in the relevant market.
President Donald Trump last week designated Maureen K. Ohlhausen as acting chair of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”). Ohlhausen is a vocal critic of government involvement in the market, suggesting the FTC under her leadership will employ a lighter touch with regard to enforcement and regulatory actions.
Last week, the FTC filed a complaint against Qualcomm, a manufacturer of baseband processors, which are chips included in cell phones and other products with cellular connectivity that allow the devices to connect to cell networks. Qualcomm holds patents to technologies incorporated in the standards that allow all cell phones to communicate with one another, referred to as standard-essential patents or SEPs. Qualcomm’s patents mostly relate to older, 3G-CDMA cellular technologies, which are still necessary for modern cell phones to work as consumers expect. As a condition of declaring its patents standard-essential, Qualcomm committed to the telecommunications industry’s standard-setting organizations that it would license its patents on a “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) basis.
As we have previously reported, (click, here, here, here, and here to read more), generic drug manufacturers have recently come under intense scrutiny from state and federal regulators for their price hikes. Last week, the Department of Justice and twenty state attorneys general instituted criminal and civil proceedings in connection with alleged generic drug price manipulation.
The trial over Aetna and Humana's $37 billion proposed merger kicked off today in a Washington, D.C. federal court.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last week issued antitrust guidelines for human resources (HR) professionals. The guidelines highlight the most common antitrust violations, based on a review of cases in which federal antitrust agencies have taken enforcement actions against employers. There are three main takeaways from this guidance.
PinnacleHealth System and Penn State Hershey Medical Center have abandoned their merger plans following a Third Circuit defeat last month. The announcement underscores the uncertainty faced by hospitals considering consolidation as a way to keep costs down and promote a value-based system of payment.
On September 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed the Federal Trade Commission a big win, overturning the Middle District of Pennsylvania’s denial of an injunction to block the proposed merger of Penn State Hershey Medical Center and PinnacleHealth System, two major healthcare providers in central Pennsylvania.
Last week the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a major win for American Express in a landmark decision in United States v. American Express Co. In that case the government filed an antitrust suit against American Express challenging Amex’s nondiscriminatory provisions (“NDPs,” or “anti-steering” rules), which bar merchants from offering discounts or incentives to customers to encourage them to use non-Amex credit cards.
The Department of Justice ("DOJ") sued this week to stop Deere & Co.'s acquisition of Monsanto Co.'s Precision Planting, explaining that the deal would harm farmers. The companies make high-speed precision planting systems, which allow farmers to plant uniformly spaced crops at double the speed of conventional planters. The deal would give Deere at least 86 percent of the market for this planting technology, the DOJ said.
On August 12, the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in Woodman’s Food Market v. Clorox Co., an appeal that we have been watching closely. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling, which held that product package size is not a promotional “service,” is an important clarification of the scope of price discrimination liability under Section 2(e) of the Robinson-Patman Act (RP Act).
What Might November’s Election Mean for Antitrust Enforcement?
It is probably safe to say that most voters in the 2016 presidential election do not view antitrust policy as a key campaign issue. Accordingly, the candidates’ and their parties’ views on competition policy were scarcely, if at all, mentioned during the recent party conventions. However, the parties’ official platforms suggest how the candidates, once in office, would handle competition policy.
The Department of Justice and attorneys general from multiple states last week sued to halt two health insurance mergers, each worth billions of dollars.
The challenged deals are Anthem's planned merger with Cigna and Aetna's proposed acquisition of Humana. The deals would whittle down the number of top competitors in the health insurance industry from five to just three: an Anthem-Cigna entity, an Aetna-Humana entity, and the current industry giant UnitedHealth Group. Each would have revenue of more than $100 billion a year.
The Federal Trade Commission has made clear that it considers the regulation of competition in health care markets one of its top priorities, but in recent weeks the FTC has been dealt a string of tough losses in its healthcare merger challenges. Here, we examine some of the key takeaways from the FTC’s recent defeats in this area.
On June 14, 2016, in FTC v. Advocate Health Care et al., No. 15-cv-11473, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied the Federal Trade Commission’s attempt to stop the merger of Advocate Health Care Network and NorthShore University HealthSystem.
Earlier this week, in Colindres v. Battle, et al., No. 15-CV-2843 (N.D. Ga.), the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia refused to dismiss antitrust claims brought by the owner of a teeth-whitening company against the members of Georgia’s Board of Dentistry. The plaintiffs, the owner and her company, allege that the Board has been sending agents to threaten her and her company with felony charges for unlicensed practice of dentistry, carrying a possible sentence of as much as five years in prison, though the Board has refused to take formal enforcement action or even put its complaints in writing.
The Antitrust Division recently issued its 2016 annual spring update. Taking advantage of modern technology, Bill Baer—now the Acting Associate Attorney General serving in the DOJ’s third-highest ranking position—prepared video remarks for your viewing pleasure. (Still, most of the Division’s updates were included in written commentary.) Renata B. Hesse now serves as the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General responsible for overseeing the Antitrust Division.
The Penn State Hershey–Pinnacle Merger: A Turning Point in FTC’s Enforcement Authority, or Just a Temporary Setback?
As we have reported previously, the Federal Trade Commission recently has taken an aggressive stance in regulating mergers in the healthcare sector. The Commission has racked up a string of victories, but last week the Middle District of Pennsylvania dealt a blow to that track record by denying the Commission’s request for a preliminary injunction to block a merger of two major healthcare providers in central Pennsylvania: Penn State Hershey Medical Center and PinnacleHealth Systems. The FTC is pursuing an emergency appeal to the Third Circuit, but this loss could signal a waning in the FTC’s enforcement authority in the healthcare sector.
After last month’s bench trial, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan has granted the FTC a preliminary injunction enjoining the merger between Staples and Office Depot. As a result, the companies have decided to end their efforts to merge. Judge Sullivan’s reasoning is not yet publicly available, but the court’s three-page order answers many of the questions that had been swirling around the trial.
A recent decision of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) regarding the sale of tobacco products highlights a long-standing tension between two sets of laws: antitrust/competition laws, which seek to keep products affordable and accessible to consumers, and consumer protection and public health laws, which can seek to steer consumers away from products that pose a risk to public health by making them less accessible.
The Department of Justice ("DOJ") announced this week that Hitachi Chemical Co. will plead guilty to a criminal charge for conspiring with competitors to fix the prices of electrolytic capacitors sold in the United States and elsewhere. The Tokyo-based company will pay an undisclosed fine and has agreed to cooperate with the DOJ's investigation.
Yesterday, Staples closed its defense in the case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to block the Staples-Office Depot merger—without calling any witnesses. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the D.C. District Court stated that he “did not anticipate” this unusual move by Staples. The CEOs of both Staples and Office Depot were slated to testify; instead, Judge Sullivan began hearing closing arguments.
Today the FTC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Endo Pharmaceuticals for entering into “pay-for-delay” agreements with two different generic manufacturers that restricted generic competition for two of its patented drugs, Opana ER and Lidoderm. The FTC alleges that Endo paid Impax, a generic drug manufacturer, $40 million to keep a generic version of Opana ER off the market for over 2 years, and that Endo and its partner Teikoku gave Watson (now Allergan) Lidoderm patches worth hundreds of millions of dollars “at no cost” for Watson to sell through its distribution subsidiary in exchange for abandoning its patent challenge.
On Monday, Staples and the Federal Trade Commission began presenting arguments in the D.C. District Court on whether the FTC should be entitled to a preliminary injunction to halt a potential merger between Staples and Office Depot. We previously reported on the Staples-Office Depot merger here and here. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is overseeing the bench trial, presided over a similar hearing just a few months ago related to the DOJ’s attempt to stop General Electric from selling its appliances division to Electrolux, a transaction that GE eventually abandoned.
We’ve previously written about how the Yates Memo announced an increased focus on individual accountability, and that the DOJ’s broader focus on individual accountability would likely encourage the Antitrust Division to increase its efforts to prosecute individuals for antitrust violations.
Yesterday, the Seventh Circuit heard argument in the Woodman’s Food Market v. Clorox Co. appeal. As members of our team have previously reported, this case concerns whether a plaintiff can state a claim under Section 2(e) of the Robinson Patman Act based on the size of the package offered for sale.
We will soon know whether the Supreme Court will grant Apple’s cert petition asking the Court to review and reverse its antitrust violation for conspiring with publishers to fix the prices of e-books. The Court will consider the petition at its next conference on February 19. As we previously reported here and here, a divided Second Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s findings that the per se rule applied to Apple’s conduct and that Apple violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
As we previously reported here, the FTC recently filed suit to challenge Staples’ $6.3 billion bid for Office Depot. In response to the FTC’s challenge, Staples offered to divest up to $1.25 billion in commercial contracts to ease concerns about reduced competition and higher prices in the market to service the office supply needs of large companies. The FTC rejected this concession without making a counteroffer. While Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is overseeing the case, said he was “frustrated” by the FTC’s refusal to negotiate, the parties are now inching closer to their May 10, 2016 trial date.
Antitrust Update Blog is a source of insights, information and analysis on criminal and civil antitrust and competition-related issues. Patterson Belknap’s antitrust lawyers represent clients in antitrust litigation and counseling matters, including those related to pricing, marketing, distribution, franchising, and joint ventures and other strategic alliances. We have significant experience with government civil and criminal/cartel investigations, providing the unique perspectives of former top U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division lawyers from both the civil and criminal sides.

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