All questions

Recent developments

On 5 February 2022, China joined the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The accession comes into force on 5 May 2022. This means that as of 5 May 2022, Chinese applicants and foreign applicants are able to register up to 100 designs in 94 countries, including China, through the filing of a single international application.

After the fourth amendment of China's Patent Law took effect on 1 June 2021, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) published draft versions of the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law2 and the Guidelines for Patent Examination.3 Each has sections dedicated to the Hague Agreement. However, at the time of writing, neither has been finalised. According to the draft version of the Guidelines for Patent Examination, CNIPA will still conduct examination of the design applications filed through the Hague Agreement and may reject the application based on the examination standard of design applications in China.4 It is reasonable to expect that foreign applicants might still receive rejections based on lack of clarity, as Chinese practice is very strict in the sense that the drawings in a design application should clearly show the design. This means that applicants will still need to provide a sufficient number of drawings that show different sides of the product bearing the design, and they should correspond to each other so that the product can be shown clearly.

Trends and outlook

After China joins the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs, it is expected that the new Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law and the Guidelines for Patent Examination will be finalised some time in 2022.

Read this article:

In review: key recent IP developments and trends in China - Lexology

A troubling video of Syracuse police detaining an 8-year-old child accused of stealing a bag of Doritos has sparked national backlash, and concern from Gov. Kathy Hochul, who on Wednesday called the incident heart wrenching. The video has raised questions about whether officers acted appropriately in both their handling of the boy who is seen hysterically crying as hes dragged into the back of a police vehicle and the outraged bystander who caught the incident on camera. To many, the image of white police officers forcibly loading the Black child into a police car as onlookers fervently protest has become yet another example of the types of incidents that fuel deep-seated distrust in law enforcement in Black communities.

Many of us are parents, and you can't help but imagine the fear in that child as he had to endure that experience, Hochul said Wednesday, three days after the video was posted to Facebook, racking up more than 50,000 views on the platform and 5 million-plus on Twitter, along with responses from concerned lawmakers and civil rights lawyers. Building the trust back between the community and the police is so important, Hochul said, speaking at an unrelated press conference in Syracuse. We have more work to do, and I know that the (Syracuse) mayor is working closely with the police department to get to the bottom of everything, but also make sure that we do protect our children, and that they're handled in a different way when it comes to encounters with law enforcement.

The Syracuse Police Department, along with Mayor Ben Walshs office have said they are investigating the incident.

Attorney Jeffrey Bloom, a partner at the law firm Gair Gair Conason, which represented the family of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed African immigrant who was shot 19 times in 1999 by New York City Police Department officers as he reached for his wallet, called the incident outrageous and said it proliferates distrust between the police and the Black community at a time when were trying to have young people gain the trust of the police department.

In the 4-minute video shot by bystander Kenneth Jackson, one of the officers involved in the incident attempted to justify the interaction by comparing the alleged theft of a bag of chips to burglary. Hes stealing stuff. If he breaks into your house and steals stuff, how do you think . . . the unidentified officer said, before Jackson cut him off.

Think of the racism of that an 8-year-old kid steals chips, but because he's a Black kid, we're going to worry that maybe he'll just come to your house and burglarize? Bloom said.

New York City-based civil rights lawyer Brett Klein, who has handled hundreds of federal police misconduct cases, called the video disturbing and said police escalated the situation. He also noted that what happened prior to Jacksons recording is important context the public has not seen, including whether the child attempted to run away.

It just seemed like they ratcheted up the situation, which was harmful to the kid, harmful to the community, harmful to the department in a way that was just needless under the circumstances, he said.

The father of the child, Anthony Weah, initially said police were respectful when they brought his son home, according to reports, but once Weah saw the video, he told Syracuse.com that he planned to file a complaint over the incident. Because the child was not formally arrested or charged, Bloom said the legal grounds for doing so were uncertain. Hes got some hurdles to overcome. Because his child was not arrested, the cause of action for false arrest is not there, Bloom said.

Both Bloom and Klein, without knowing what happened prior to the interaction captured on video, noted a better solution would have been to speak to the boy, explain what he did wrong, and possibly call his father to the scene.

They could have spoken to him. They could have called the parents. They could have worked something out given his size, his obviously very young age, how sad he was, Klein said.

Former NYPD Detective Sergeant and Department of Correction Assistant Commissioner Keith Taylor, who now works as an adjunct assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was hesitant to criticize police for detaining the child, in part, because police reportedly said the alleged theft was part of a pattern. However, Taylor said the officers interactions with the bystanders appear to be a clearer breach of protocol.

We don't have the full story, but from what we can see, it looks like the officers were irate, and they were responding out of that emotional response. Antagonistic, I think, both parties were to each other, Taylor said. One of the things that I think is always important is for officers, when they're dealing with the general public, is to have their best face showing, to have the proper courtesy, professionalism, respect . . . and not not act in a way that can be perceived as not best representing the agency theyre working for.

Taylor added that typical protocol when conducting an arrest of a person who falls into a special category, such as a child, pregnant or elderly person, would be to wait for a supervisor to come to the scene. According to the NYPD Patrol Guide, arresting officers must call the Juvenile Desk prior to beginning the arrest process to ensure that any intelligence regarding the juvenile is obtained before the decision whether to release the juvenile to a parent/guardian or adult relative is made.

The Syracuse Police Department did not respond to questions from City & State about the incident. In a statement released Tuesday, the department said officers body-worn cameras were under review. There is some misinformation involving this case. The juvenile suspected of larceny was not placed in handcuffs. He was placed in the rear of a patrol unit where he was directly brought home. Officers met with the childs father and no charges were filed, the statement said.

Klein, however, said the video evidence shows the child was clearly not free to leave. This is a problem, a disconnect with police departments that I see every day for the last two and a half decades of doing this, he said. As soon as the police touch you and take you, and you're not clear to leave, that is an imprisonment or a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and so they did detain him, they did imprison him.

Follow this link:

Syracuse police had other options for dealing with 8-year-old accused of stealing. They didn't use them. - City & State

The countless online videos of police brutality and African Americans dying at the hands of police officers have led to deep conversations about America's policing problem and TV portrayals. One side of the argument is committed to the idea that all cops are inherently good brave men and women who dedicate their lives to keeping us safe. The other side of the argument believes that all police officers are oppressive, terrible people who are dedicated to ruining the lives of Black people. Both sides are right, which makes the argument even more confusing.

Yes, a cop can be good and bad. Both of these things can be true. We see that clearly documented in the new HBO six-part miniseries, "We Own This City," which centers on Baltimore cop Wayne Jenkins, played by Jon Bernthal. I first met Bernthal when he started reading my writing covering these issues in my home city. We connected later when he signed onto play the lead actor and I joined the writers' room. Bernthal and I sat down on "Salon Talks" in New York last week to talk about his lengthy preparation process and the personal effect the role has had on him.

These cops stole from civilians, sold all kinds of drugs, committed massive overtime fraud and sent a large number of innocent people to prison

Most people are only able to critique police officers through the lens of their own experiences. If you grew up in a neighborhood where cops show up two minutes after you call them, and even stick around to make sure you feel extra safe, then you probably think police officers are heroes. And if you grew up like me, in a neighborhood where police officers were hungry to grind their boots into your gumline, steal your money and harass you for no reason other than the color of your skin, then you probably think all cops are a**holes. The problem is that both sides struggle with the ability to be able to accept the other side's experiences good or bad. People only believing in their own experiences is childish, extremely dangerous, unfair and will never lead to any real understanding. If police haters or apologists were open to different arguments, they will learn that their limited critiques lack the way in which some police departments reward police officers who appear to be good in certain communities for doing all of the wrong things making those cops both good and bad."We Own This City," created by David Simon and George Pelecanos ("The Wire") is based on the book "We Own This City" by journalist Justin Fenton, which tells the story of Sergeant Wayne Jenkins and The Gun Trace Task Force (GTTF), a group of elite cops in Baltimore who had special privileges because of their abilities to get guns off of the street. What their bosses didn't know is that one of the reasons they were so good at getting guns was because they were planting them on people. These cops stole from civilians, sold all kinds of drugs, committed massive overtime fraud and sent a large number of innocent people to prison.Cop lovers saw these guys as heroes because they were always touted as the best at getting weapons and dangerous criminals off of the streets cop haters knew they were frauds, because of the way these guys terrorized Black communities for generations. It's all perspective solely based on your color and zip code. Jon Bernthal star of "The Walking Dead," "King Richard," and "The Punisher" plays Wayne Jenkins, the golden boy of the Baltimore City Police Department.Jenkins had sappy dreams of being a square police officer at the beginning of his career but realized stealing from Black people in oppressed areas was a lot more lucrative than what he brought home after two weeks of work. He also realized that if he made cases, he could quickly move up in rank, stash a whole lot of cash, still be considered a hero to cop lovers and have a pretty good life. Jenkins did this for years, collecting constant praise and privilege. He even received a bronze star from then-commissioner Kevin Davis for his efforts in helping out injured officers during the Freddie Gray unrest. The funny part is that the department was so proud of the way Jenkins brought encouragement, water and food to cops, aiding them during the protest while during those same protests he ran up inside of looted pharmacies and stole opioids to sell. One side saw him going above and beyond to help his fellow officers, as the other side saw him stealing. Both things can be true and we can't have a real conversation until we fully acknowledge that.

Jenkins was sentenced to 25 years, back in 2018. However, there are still some people who believe that he is innocent, even though some of his crimes are caught on tape, even though a bunch of officers testified against him, even though he confessed to his crimes.

Watch my "Salon Talks" episode with Jon Bernthal here, or read a Q&A of our conversation below, to hear more about playing Jenkins, how he addresses "The Wire" comparisons and what he learned working side-by-side with Baltimore City Police officers, many who knew Jenkins, to prepare for this complex role.

The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

My great friend, my brother, Jon Bernthal. How you doing, man?Man, it's great to be here with you guys.

First I want to tell all our viewers that I worked on "We Own This City" too, as a writer. I covered the story for a long time and I wasn't even thinking about who would play these characters and who can pull it off. Then when Jon and I met, I was like, "That's the guy." How do you decide what role is for you?

There literally is not a day that goes by that I don't feel deep, deep gratitude and feel how blessed I am to be doing something that I love and being able to support my family from it. The way things were starting in my life, it did not really look like things were really working out, and I found this, I fell in love with it and I put everything towards it. I never, in a million years, thought I'd be in a place where I actually get to make choices. And that's the blessing of all blessings in this business.

For me, there's really nothing strategic as far as career stuff. I'm never saying, "Well, I've done some action stuff, so I need to do a rom-com, I need to be in this market or that." I just never have thought in those terms. For me, it really comes down to a few criteria. And that is if I read the words and something happens to me, if my heart is affected by it, I want to get in there. If it scares me, if it's something that I feel like I can't do, I want to run towards it. If I get to work with people that I really respect and admire, and I'm just chomping at the bit to get in the box with them, then I run towards it.

"It's just a bunch of flag-waving and agenda-driven sort of spoon-fed information."

To be honest with you, with this project in particular, this checked every single box. It was working with heroes, working with people I deeply respect and wanted to get in the box with. And it also covers issues that are enormously important to me, near and dear to my heart, things that I'm fascinated by, troubled by, has caused enormous amounts of pain in my life. And I felt like this was an opportunity to explore these issues and dive into the gray, dive into the wound, explore them with all the nuance that these issues deserve because so much of the discourse around these issues in this country right now is just being led by the polls.

It's just a bunch of flag-waving and agenda-driven sort of spoon-fed information. I knew that this piece was going to be driven by journalistic integrity and trying to tell the truth and to not shy away from how complicated these issues are so this was a no-brainer.

I imagine it's difficult in these times to take a role as a police officer because you have one side that's pro-cop, you have another side that's anti-cop, and you have to be able to walk that line and find that balance and do something that's complex and nuanced.

I think if you're going to do it this is the group of people to do it with. This is the city to do it in, with these people. I really believe that we told this story with the city of Baltimore, for the city of Baltimore and by the city of Baltimore. I feel like there was such reverence and respect to the folks that this story was about, to the victims, but also to the BPD and the good folks that still are on that job. And I got to, it's my job.

This was one of the things you and I first connected to, with your writing. I feel like you write with empathy. I feel like your description and your dive into Danny in your piece, you went above and beyond and out of your way to get to know who he was, to get to know his pain, to look at him as a human being, not just as this archetype or this, you looked at his flaws, but you didn't judge him. You question your own judgment. I have so much respect for that as an artist. That's what I had to do.

RELATED:Thanksgiving and "The Wire": My true Baltimore story about the streets, writing and TV

You play Wayne Jenkins, an ambitious supercop. He was the cop's cop, right? He was the guy they looked up to and then he goes on this dark spiral. Let's start at you trying to figure out how to portray that. Walk us through your research process, because I heard you mention Donny Step, who was his best friend.

My first conversation with David Simon, he said, "We can't just make him a monster," and everybody, from Donny Step, who he used to sell drugs with, to other officers from GTTF, to the gentleman he used to coach youth football with, I got to know everybody in his life, as many people as I could, and to a person, every single person said he was a committed father.

He put his kids above everything else. And for me, that's something I can really relate to. I'm a father before I'm anything else. I needed a hook into this character, to something that I could relate to and kind of believe in, and I feel like there is this crux, this conflict that I believe exists in all of us. How could you be that committed your children, but yet engage in this kind of activity that is going to eventually, and ultimately separate you from them for most likely the rest of your life? That pressure and that conflict was something that was with Wayne at all times. And through all the stories and all the footage and everything I saw, I always saw that conflict present in him.

He coached football too, right?

He coached youth football. He coached his sons and he was extraordinarily passionate with it. He fought MMA. Look, I think there's nobody better than David and George in terms of their track record, being able to explore systematic, systemic issues and how they affect the individual.

Absolutely.

"We can't just make him a monster."

Policies go down and they tear up people's lives. To do it on both this sort of macro level, but then to get down to the nitty-gritty and how lives are destroyed because of these policy decisions. So I think it examines kind of the culture of policing, what's so present, especially in that department. I think to find, to track his journey through, I think it's really important to dig in to his life as much as possible.

You were everywhere.

Everywhere around that city, Middle River and then I was doing three months of ride-alongs in really every district. A lot of those plain-clothed flex unit squads have been disbanded, but a lot of the guys from the Gun Trace Task Force, they're still working. A lot of their careers have been completely upended because of their proximity to Wayne. There's a few guys in particular Tony Maggio and Sergeant Nagavich and Keith Galliano guys that I got to know really, really well, who still police in that sort of similar way.

They're all guys that are from the community. They grew up in the community. I believe they're policing for the right reasons, but they still police. They still, in their terms, police aggressively. I really wanted to understand what that meant. I think when you police aggressively, you lead to a lot of fourth amendment violations, period. It's like, if you're out there, you're not waiting for the crime to happen. You're going there and you're trying to take the fight to the criminals. Just the idea of that, it's an us versus them mentality, which oftentimes is a fertile field for tragedy and trauma. And unfortunately, in Wayne's case, it was a fertile field for corruption.

That's the most difficult part of the conversation is everybody wants one thing. You just talked about how good of a father this guy was. You can be a great father and you can do all those other things, too. Both things are true. We have to tell the whole story.

Absolutely.You can try to police in a certain way. Your intentions could be good, but what you do in that process could be f**ked up for somebody else. Right?

Destroy people's lives.

You brought up George Pelecanos and David Simon, the creators of the show. They are the two people who have the power and the patience and the love and the research ability to tell this story. You worked with them before on "Show Me A Hero. "

Yes, sir.

RELATED:"Democracy is never perfected": David Simon on his new HBO series and the 2020 "s**tshow" election

What makes a David and George project special?

Look, George Pelecanos, his relationship to the city of Baltimore, to that Baltimore-based crew that he's been with now for over 20 years, it's the same crew from "The Wire." Kids that grew up on that show were coming back and playing young men. He knows people's family members. He knows intimate details. It's clear people eat together. They stayed in contact.

This entire piece, again, was made with reverence for the sensitivity and the vitality of the story. As you know, man, Wayne Jenkins, that's a household name in Baltimore. That first night you and me hung out, we were just asking people, saying, "Hey, man. You know Wayne Jenkins?" People know who he was. That story is alive on the streets. You walk around on those streets with that name tag, that W. Jenkins, you meet people who were victims of his. People have stories about him, everyone.

Because it's those guys [Pelecanos and Simon] and because there's so much resonance of "The Wire" in that city, the only way I really know how to work or want to work was I needed to go into the BPD and I needed to be able to dive in. I needed to be able to get to know them. I needed to be able to, and honestly, if you're telling a story about one of the ugliest chapters of the Baltimore Police Department, it's really hard for them. You're playing one of the most vilified and vile characters that have ever been in that department and say, "Hey, I'm here for research." Why should they open up their arms to me? Why should they welcome me in?

Why did they do it?

Because of David and George and because of the respect that they had for telling the truth. I think you only get one go-round. Your reputation as a human being is just as important as your reputation as an artist. if what you do is you tell the truth, that's what you're trying to do, that's all you're trying to dig, I think that has real resonance with people. Keith Galliano, who was a protege of Wayne's and is an unbelievably wonderful cop, he's policing for the right reasons. He's enormously successful within the department. He watches "The Wire." He says he re-watches it every single year to remember you cannot take things personally on the street. You got to divorce that. When someone's running from you, they're not running from you, they're running from the badge.

The lessons that were imparted in that story have deep resonance within that department. The police officers that I really responded to were the ones that really looked at the police's responsibility to look at the mistakes they've made and accepting them and call them mistakes because there's so much pressure to just deny culpability at all costs. And you're never going to move on from that. And I think, it's what I say to my kids all the time. When you have a problem, if you want to fix it, the first and most vital step is realizing you have a problem. And I think one of the most, one of the best things that we can do as artists is show a mirror to society and show society, "Hey, this is a problem. We're showing it for all its nuance and all its detail." And I think once you see it, and you can understand it, you can start really trying to figure out ways to fix it and understand its complexities.

"Keith Galliano ... re-watches 'The Wire' every single year to remember you cannot take things personally on the street."

Some of those police officers you mentioned got a chance to participate in the show. A lot of people who were victims of the Gun Trace Task Force also got a chance to participate in the show, in front of the camera and behind the camera, for both sides.

Yes, sir.

That is something that should be talked about because you're telling the story and trying to honor the victims. It's that kind of truth that scares people and it is a beautiful thing. This show is a vehicle and a mechanism that can unite.

It's cathartic, it's therapeutic. I do really believe in the power of art in that way. It's something that I hold near and dear to my life. I feel like my life was saved by art and finding this. And the fact that people could sit down and make this piece of art when it was so unbelievably personal to them, it changes the air that we breathed on set. The vitality it's exactly how I like to work. I'm so grateful for that. I'm so grateful, when somebody opens up and somebody's willing to tell you their story, let alone come and then participate in the telling of it, that's sacred.

I feel 100% confident that we honored that and that we treated the city of Baltimore and the folks that this story's about, and the people that came in to come participate with us, we treated it with the right reverence, and that's really the culture of how George and David and that team, that's how they work. And so I'm grateful for that.

This year alone there have been several television shows where actors were tasked with playing living people who have done some terrible things. Do you feel like your position as an actor changes after playing something like this? Do you see it in a different way?

"My heart has been completely broken as we have more and more examples of people who have suffered at the hands of corrupt police."

I don't really think about position as an actor, that hasn't really crossed my mind. Look, more than anything else it's, I'm not trying to be political with it, but it's gratitude. As you know, these are issues that have deeply affected my life and I really care about, and I feel like I was able to have kind of a front row ticket to so much of this and to really understand and get into the city of Baltimore, to meet so many wonderful people, to have people share their stories with me. Look, Wayne, I talked to Wayne and we communicated from prison. I got to know and ride out with so many of the people whose lives he affected.

My heart has been completely broken as we have more and more examples of people who have suffered at the hands of corrupt police and weak police and cowardly police who have engaged in brutality, and people's fourth amendment rights that have been violated. My heart breaks for those folks. The one thing I really learned on this project, in spending so much time with this department itself was this whole other set of victims that I really didn't have any access to, and that is good police, people who are policing for the right reasons. They are less safe. Their careers are upended. Their daily lives are affected by, also by the actions of these corrupt police. And that's a whole other group of victims that I didn't really know about.

Are you worrying about the 20 million "Wire" comparisons?

I did "The Sopranos" movie and now this. I don't think about those terms. For me, I felt about it in the day to day, tactical, being there every day. I was walking onto a set with you and with George and with David and Nina and Miss Debbie and these folks that have that created, in my opinion, the greatest show of all time. That's a family, and they opened their arms to me and they welcomed me in. I knew I was in someone else's house the entire time and I just wanted to come in there with respect.

The Wayne that I think that I portrayed, he kind of does his own thing, but I knew to commit to that fully, that was my way of honoring the city and honestly honoring the victims, to go full out.

And I just want to say, Ray Green, Reinaldo Marcus Green we had come off "King Richard" together. He's my brother. He doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves for that film and what he was able to accomplish there. I would walk anywhere with that man. For me, to take on something like this, knowing we were going into it together, it filled me with so much confidence just knowing I had this support system. I think he's one of the best filmmakers in the world, and honestly of all times, so to know that I had him there with, getting my back and by my side, that filled me with gratitude and confidence.

"We Own This City" premieres Monday, April 25 at 9 p.m. on HBO and streams on HBO Max. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

Watch more "Salon Talks" episodes with D. Watkins :

Read the original here:

Jon Bernthal embedded with Baltimore police to play city's dirtiest cop in HBO's "We Own This City" - Salon

Fourth Amendment protections have been chipped away at for around a century, violating the civil rights of American citizens.

Robert Frommer and Daryl James| Guest columnists

Nobody roams onto Terry Rainwaters land by accident. A locked gate blocks cars, and no trespassing signs warn uninvited guests to stay off the 136-acre parcel along the Big Sandy River in Camden west of Nashville.

So Rainwaters was surprised in December 2017 when he discovered two spy cameras mounted on trees within the boundaries of where he lives, farms and hunts. Whoever installed the devices even lopped off a branch on one of Rainwaters trees to get an unobstructed view of all his comings and goings.

Needless to say, Rainwaters was creeped out. He soon learned that the cameras belonged to the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, which routinely sends officers onto private fields without search warrants to snoop for evidence of game and fish violations.

Rather than accept the abuse, Rainwaters fought back with a lawsuit against the trespassing agency. Our public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, represents him.

Although the case is proceeding in state court under the authority of the Tennessee Constitution, the central claims point to a nationwide problem. Starting about 100 years ago, federal courts began chipping away at the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Many local courts have followed along, gutting similar provisions in their state constitutions. Time and again, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved rather than checked these violations, leaving landowners like Rainwaters along with just about everyone else vulnerable.

One of the first setbacks came in 1924 during Prohibition, when the Supreme Court held that government agents could hide on private land to see if someone was brewing or selling alcohol. In one fell swoop, all constitutional protections for most private land in America vanished. The focus shifted to narcotics during the War on Drugs, but the Open Fields Doctrine has remained in effect.

Hear more Tennessee voices: Get the weekly opinion newsletter for insightful and thought-provoking columns.

The so-called Third-Party Doctrine represents another setback. This judge-made law, which the Supreme Court invented in 1976, strips away Fourth Amendment protections for any information that a person voluntarily turns over to third parties.

Examples include bank deposits, debit card transactions, telephone numbers and website addresses. Essentially, anyone who lives in the modern world must waive Fourth Amendment rights.

Many business owners also lose protections at work. Code enforcers typically need a warrant to inspect warehouses and backroom areas closed to the public, but the Supreme Court created an exception to the warrant requirement in 1970 for what it called closely regulated industries.

The high court has applied the exception to just four industries with long histories of rigorous government oversight: liquor, firearms, mining and junkyards. But lower courts have expanded the narrow exception to the breaking point.

Local and state regulators now use the Closely Regulated Industry excuse to look for civil code violations at all manner of ordinary businesses, including restaurants, daycares, construction sites, credit unions, pawnshops, banks, health care facilities, nursing homes, insurance offices, grain silos, truckyards, taxidermy shops and even rabbit breeding facilities.

Sign up for our newsletter: Read compelling columns by Black writers from across Tennessee.

The intrusions are bad, but the government goes further when people rent their homes. Inspectors in many cities and towns can show up at any time and demand warrantless access to bedrooms, bathrooms and other private living quarters.

If tenants or landlords refuse, then inspectors can fill out a court application and receive a rubber-stamp administrative warrant. Officials dont need to show that anything is wrong with the property, just that they want to go inside.

Much of the problem traces back to the Supreme Court, which blessed administrative warrants for residences in a 1967 California case. Although the Fourth Amendment explicitly says that no Warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause,municipalities now regularly use these watered-down search warrants to violate civil rights.

Other abuses occur during traffic stops and police encounters at airports, border checkpoints, train stations and bus terminals. Anywhere members of the public interact with law enforcement, they face a rigged system that gives the government more power than the Fourth Amendment allows.

Rainwaters found out the hard way. Now the country needs a reset, so people in Tennessee and elsewhere can live like citizens, not subjects.

Robert Frommer is a senior attorney and Daryl James is a writer at the Institute for Justice in Arlington, Va.

Continued here:

When the government hides spy cameras on your land, fight back in court | Opinion - Tennessean

Drug patent linkage originated as an innovation from the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act in the US. It refers to (1) procedurally linking the approval of the sale of a generic drug and its patent validity review; and (2) functionally linking the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The system effectively provided legal solutions to potential patent infringements before the generic drug launches into the market.

Jumping ahead to 1 October 2017, Chinas general offices of the CPC Central Committee and the State Council called for exploring drug patent linkage and lowering the patent infringement risks of generic drugs with their Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Evaluation and Approval Systems and Encouraging Innovation on Drugs and Medical Devices, aiming to incentivise generic drug development.

In October 2020, the linkage system was formally introduced into the fourth amendment to Patent Law, an upper-tier law in Chinas legislative hierarchy. On such basis, the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and China National Intellectual Property Administration issued the Measures for Implementation of the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes (interim) on 4 July 2021. The following day, the Provisions on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Civil Cases involving Patent Disputes Related to Drugs of which Applications for Registration are Filed and the Administrative Adjudication of the Mechanism for Early Settlement of Drug Patent Disputes were released by the Supreme Peoples Court and CNIPA, respectively. Thus, drug patent linkage was implemented throughout administration, lawsuit and administrative adjudication.

By comparing the drug patent linkage systems in China and the US, this article will hopefully prove insightful to our colleagues in the industry.

Patent classifications

Registered drug patents in the US can be classified into drug substance (active ingredient) patents, drug product (formulation and composition) patents, and method-of-use patents.

In China, a drug can be patented as a chemical drug, traditional Chinese medicine or a biological product. Chemical drugs may be further registered as pharmaceutical active ingredient compound patents, pharmaceutical composition patents containing active ingredients, or patents for medical use. As the matter of stay period and exclusivity period below does not apply to traditional Chinese medicine or biological products, this article will focus on drug linkage differences between China and the US in terms of chemical drugs.

Patent declaration

Paragraph II certification in the US means that a patent has expired in spite of its inclusion in the Orange Book, FDA's Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

Class two declaration, Chinas equivalent of the above, means that the patent relating to the drug which is imitated included in the registration platform has been terminated or declared invalid, or that the generic drug applier has obtained the relevant implementation license from the patentee.

Duty of notification and limitation of action

Paragraph IV certification in the US requires that the generic drug applier must notify the patentee and the marketing authorisation holder within 20 days from the acceptance of application. The patentee and holder may file a lawsuit at the court within 45 days of receiving the notification.

Under class four declaration, Chinas equivalent of the above, the NMPA should make a public announcement within 10 working days after accepting a generic drug application, and the applier should submit the declaration and its basis to the marketing authorisation holder, who is entitled to file a lawsuit at a court or apply for administrative adjudication by the CNIPA within 45 days from the announcement date.

Dispute resolution

Generic drug patent infringement is determined via judicial proceedings in the US, while application for patent invalidation may be submitted to a court or the USPTO.

In China, generic drug patent infringement can be determined by court via judicial proceedings or by the CNIPA via administrative adjudication. Patent invalidation, on the other hand, must be submitted to the CNIPA.

Stay period

In the US, a stay period of 30 months will be imposed by the FDA if the patentee or the marketing authorisation holder files a lawsuit within the limitation of action. Stay period can only be ordered once and may be shortened or prolonged by the court.

In China, after receiving a notification of case initiation from the court or a copy of CNIPAs notice of acceptance, the NMPA will impose a nine-month stay period.

Exclusivity period

In the US, the first generic drug that successfully challenges the patent and launches into the market is entitled to a 180-day exclusivity period, which will be invalidated if the first applicant:

Exclusivity period in China is 12 months, but cannot exceed the patent term of the challenged drug. The conditions for losing exclusivity remains a vacant spot in Chinas regulations pending future complementation.

Our thoughts

Chinas drug patent linkage system mirrors the US framework, but also deviates from it where the national situation calls for such a change. For instance, given that China is currently short in new drugs, first generic drugs are given preferential treatment, such as shorter stay period and longer exclusivity, to encourage their earlier launch.

It should be mentioned that Chinas drug patent linkage system is still in a nascent stage, with more refined and detailed provisions on the way. We look forward to seeing the new system evolve in future practices.

Read more:

Comparing drug patent linkage in China and the US - Lexology

CHICAGO Oral arguments were heard Tuesday in the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding eight Black Lives Matter protestersarrested and jailed beyond 48 hours aftera 2020 demonstration in Rockford.

The plaintiffs were arrested on a Friday evening and held for three days without bond hearings, a common practice in Winnebago County because there is no weekend bond count.

The defendants' attorneys said the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to a bond hearing within 48 hours.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Adele Nicholas, a Chicago-based civil rights advocate, argued that the lack of weekend and holiday bond hearings in Winnebago County results in unreviewed, extended detentions and violates the Fourth Amendment.Reached after the hearing Tuesday, she called Winnebago County an "outlier."

Nicholas noted Cook County has court 365 days a year.

"If you get arrested on Christmas Eve, you get a hearing to determine whether you should be released on bail the next day," she said. "It's not really controversial that that's the appropriate process in almost all jurisdictions."

She added, "Winnebago County's procedures put people at very serious risk of losing their jobs, their income and not being able to take care of their families for no reason other thanWinnebago has deemed it more convenient to only have court on regular business days."

The plaintiffs are:Dylan Mitchell,26;Dayna Schultz, 23;Ivan Holland,25; AndrewEhrhardt,23; and Jaylen Butler, 20, all of Rockford; Ross Wagner,35, of Madison, Wisconsin;Larissa Walston,23, of Loves Park; and Michael Riggs,20, of South Beloit.

Previously: Protesters have spent 100 days outside Rockford City Hall, and they have no plans to leave

Many of the protesters, if not all, participated in one of several civil rights protests held in Rockford and around the country after the May 25, 2020, death of George Floyd, a manwho died after a Minneapolis, Minnesota, police officer knelt on his neck for nearly nine minutes.

Once the plaintiffs appeared appeared the following Monday before a judge, they were released on their own recognizance.

The plaintiffs' initial filing was dismissed by the district court, which noteda judge signs a probable cause statement within 48 hours.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs arguethe judge does so without the accusedor their attorneys present makingtheprobable cause hearings"constitutionally inadequate" because they deny people who could be released on bail the opportunity to request release within 48 hours.

Photos:Images from four months of protests in Rockford

The defendants are 17th Judicial Circuit Court Chief Judge Eugene Doherty,Sheriff Gary Caruana and Winnebago County.

Doherty is being represented by the Illinois Attorney General's Office. The county is being represented by the law firm of Hinshaw &Culbertson.

Michael Iasparro, a Hinshaw & Culbertson attorney, notedthe district court judgedetermined there is no constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to abail hearingwithin 48 hours. He is hopeful the U.S. Court of Appeals will rule likewise.

"There'sa presumption of constitutionality if there is a finding of probable causefor somebody arrested without a warrant made by a judge within 48 hours," he said, "but that's never been extended to the right to a bail hearing under the Fourth Amendment."

There is no date by which the court must rule on the case.

Chris Green: cgreen@rrstar.com; @chrisfgreen

Excerpt from:

Rockford Black Lives Matter case over bond hearings is now in hands of US Court of Appeals - Rockford Register Star

Editors note: The Daily Signals audience sounds like its had enough with parents being marginalized or criminalized as the left seeks to transform public schools. Heres a sampling from the mailbag at [emailprotected]Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: It was appropriate for conservative congressmen such as Rep. Jim Jordan to grill Attorney General Merrick Garland during a House hearing, as reported by Mary Margaret Olohan (3 Takeaways From AG Garlands House Panel Testimony on Virginia School Rape Case, Conflict of Interest).

But now that conservatives have shown the attorney general to be so irresponsible as to encourage his agencies of law enforcement to go after parents over school board disputes, based solely on a partisan National School Boards Association letter, among other serious issues (such as his willful ignorance about the school rape case in Loudon County, Virginia), wheres the follow-up?

The GOP caucus should be filing forand loudly and unceasingly demandingGarlands impeachment. Of course, the effort would likely fail. But what better tool to focus national attention on the Justice Departments weaponizing of legitimate protest?Joel Brind, Ph.D., Wappingers Falls, N.Y.

Dear Daily Signal: Where to start with Fred Lucas report on the attorney generals testimony to a Senate committee (6 Takeaways From Merrick Garlands Senate Testimony on Activist Parents and Other Issues)?

First, why is a threat, if any, against a local school board member a federal offense that requires involvement of Attorney General Merrick Garlands Justice Department and FBI? That seems to me to be a matter that can and should be investigated by state or local law enforcement.

I would argue that Garland is badly abusing his authority by getting involved in this issue. There is a disturbing trend, to elevate every dispute at local levels to a federal issue. Its not the responsibility of the federal government.

Riots, looting, and other violence in various areas of the country were ignored by the feds last year, and federal involvement was condemned for those serious crimes. Yet this is a federal issue? I think not.

Second, I understand from Lucas report that Garland and his Justice Department approved a settlement with former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe because it was less expensive. The attorney general excuses rewarding a lawbreaker at taxpayer expense for expedience?

I would think the Justice Department attorneys involved in such a case are on the government payroll whether litigating against McCabe or working on some other issue. So the taxpayer expense for those lawyers is exactly the same regardless of the case at hand.

McCabe successfully got away with the serious crime of repeatedly lying under oath. That seems to me to be a precedent that future criminals might employ; it is a dereliction of duty on Garlands watch and perhaps by Garland himself.

I could go on, but Garland is a disgrace to our nation as a partisan attorney general. I echo Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.: that Thank God that Garland is not on the Supreme Court.Wayne Peterkin, Evangeline, La.

***

The Justice Department can move at glacial speed on most things, but interestingly, as your Problematic Women podcast points out, the agency hopped on this issue like a scalded jackrabbit (National School Boards Association Issues Weak Apology for Letter Likening Parents Actions to Domestic Terrorism).

The damage done by this hasty overreaction was immediate. The National School Boards Association never will recover the trust of parents in the institution of education. They dug their own grave.

Unfortunately, its future generations of young people who will suffer the most in this.Emily Smith, Mississippi

Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Mary Clare Amselems well-written commentary article (Virginia Parents Standing Up to Loudoun County School Board Should Inspire Parents Everywhere). She touched on many of the key points that concerned parents are standing up to discuss regarding their childrens education.

Amselem does an excellent job of reminding us that the concern is not limited to critical race theory or woke ideology in schools, but also the push to accept any and all forms of transgender opinions, pornographic materials, and so on.

She correctly uses examples in a noninflammatory manner to remind us all that our children, their education, upbringing, and welfare belong to us and not the state.In a frightening but true observation, she writes that the left has come to embrace the troubling perspective that children are partially owned by the state.

It is important for parents (and school boards) to remember the key point in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court case she cites from 1925: The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize him and prepare him for additional obligations.Chuck Williams, Littleton, Colo.

***

Name one company in which the executive who authorizes employees paychecks is not allowed to tell employees what he/she expects from them. Yet school boards are telling parents they have no right to say what they want from their childrens education.

School boards do not pay teachers salaries. That money comes from citizen taxpayers.

Im one of those taxpayers. Im retired, but Ive taught in public schools. I have a masters degree in education. In the first parents night visit, I always outlined my teaching goals and I invited parents to be involved in what they wanted their children to learn.

At the time, I was a member of the National Education Association. That was back when the NEA was concerned about improving the quality of education, a goal that no longer exists for that teachers union.

I grieve over what has become of our nation, especially the government. I applaud parents who insist on being involved in their childrens schools and education.D. Michael Douglas, Mesa, Ariz.

Dear Daily Signal: I have never responded to one of your articles, but read them diligently.I am appalled by Mary Margaret Olohans report on the behavior of the school board in Wellesley, Massachusetts, and its inclusion director, Charmie Curry (Lawsuit Targets Massachusetts Public School System for Racial Segregation, Censoring Students).

Honestly, that officials title seems to apply only to certain groups.I was also surprised that the language associated with being white was so demeaning. If I were to use this type of language to describe another group, I would be characterized as bigoted, racist, and insensitive. I would agree with that assessment.

However, it seems that these educators and inclusion personnel are not held to the same standard.I do not feel particularly angry, fearful, or guilty.So far today, I have managed to not cry once.

What I am, however, is distrusting.If an individual such as Curry behaves in such an egregious manner, I find that I avoid them. In all aspects of my life.

It is disappointing that during the last decade, the racial divide in our country has continued to expand.I am unsure of the solution, as it is a complicated issue. However, negative labeling and insulting terms are not going to provide any opportunity for compromise and healing.Mac Irwin, Bedford, Texas

Dear Daily Signal: About Mary Margaret Olohans report on the rape in a girls restroom at a high school in Loudoun County, Virginia: I was very naive to believe that the #MeToo movement truly cared about victims of sexual abuse and assault (#MeToo Groups Silent Over Boy Allegedly Raping Girl in Loudoun School Girls Bathroom).

If these organizers truly cared, they would be outraged that transgender individuals or those who claimed to be transgender to gain access to vulnerable women and girls were attacking girls and women.Nancy Mclellan

***

The #MeToo movement has done much damage to many men, who have lost jobs with even a hint of some infraction.

Then to hear of the lack of outrage when two young girls are sexually assaulted by a gender-fluid male is unbelievable. Add insult to injury that the Virginia father of one of the girls is arrested and charged when the Loudoun County Board of Educationwould not listen to him.

What father would not be distraught that his daughter had been raped?

Biological males have no place in female bathrooms, locker rooms, or prisons. Furthermore, they do not belong in womens sports. When is common sense and real science going to reassert itself?Victor Watson

Dear Daily Signal: Amy Swearers article on the Supreme Courts New York state gun case was excellent (Supreme Court Arguments in New York Gun Case Signal Uphill Battle to Defend Overly Restrictive Laws).

One thing I always wondered about is why, in analyses,the Second Amendment isnt also tied to and further strengthened bythe Fourth Amendment (on being secure in ones person), the Ninth (on rightsretained by the people), and the 10th (on rights retained by the people).

Isnt self-defense, with or without a militia, a fundamental right retained by each person? Why, even animals have it.

The Second Amendment also is supported by documents such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1777), also incorporated in the Virginia Constitution, including: That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

In Samuel Johnsons Dictionary, first published in 1755, his first definition for man includes both men and women. Its as if at that time they knew the truth even though society practiced male-led government.

Keep up the good work. Hopefully, the Supreme Courtincluding some or all liberal justiceswill join on this to defeat New Yorks taking of constitutional rights.Mark Doehnert, Falls Church, Va.

***

When the Second Amendment is challenged, the defense always advances the argument that the police are all that is necessary to protect the population.

Why is it so hard to get people to understand that the mission of the police is not to keep crimes from happening, but to bring criminals to justice after the crime has been committed? Only potential victims have the ability to stop a crime from being committed.Ronald Everett, Erlanger, Ky.

Dear Daily Signal: Melanie Israels commentary article on the abortion case before the Supreme Court pointed out that the most important aspect is that the Constitution provides for the people to deal with issues such as abortion through their elected representatives (A Major Abortion Case Goes Before the Supreme Court. Heres What You Need to Know.)

Americans do so in their own state legislatures, and it isnt constitutional for the Supreme Court to usurp their authority under states rights to do so.

I think the American public needs to be reminded of that often. Then the public could keep reminding the Supreme Court justices, and perhaps others in government, who either are ignorant of that fact or intent on ignoring it.Barry Click, California

Douglas Blair contributed to this edition of We Hear You. The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

Read more:

We Hear You: Parents Must Fight to Save Public Schools - Daily Signal

The man charged with raping two lifeguards at deserted pools in Northern Virginia is challenging the method by which police identified him as a suspect, in an appeal to Virginia's Supreme Court.

A Virginia man whos serving 65 years in prison for brutally raping two lifeguards in Alexandria and Fairfax County will ask Virginias Supreme Court to overturn his convictions, based on the way he was caught.

On Tuesday, attorneys for Jesse Bjerke will ask the commonwealths highest court to throw out his 2020 conviction and sentence for attacking lifeguards at deserted pools in Fairfax in 2014 and Alexandria in 2016.

The focus of the appeal, filed by Bjerkes attorney Christopher Leibig, challenges the constitutionality of the way detectives used familial DNA analysis to confirm Bjerke was the man who raped the lifeguard in the Alexandria attack. The same analysis was later used to link Bjerke to the earlier Fairfax County rape.

In 2019, genealogy researchers used public databases to link DNA recovered from the victim in the 2016 attack to a member of Bjerkes family.

While tailing Bjerke to an Old Town restaurant, detectives picked up two drinking straws Bjerke had used, after he tossed them in the garbage.

The straws were submitted to Virginias Department of Forensic Science, which developed a DNA profile from the straw. The findings enabled police to get an arrest warrant for Bjerke, who was unaware police considered him a suspect.

After his arrest, a buccal swab of Bjerkes DNA was analyzed, and matched the DNA found on the victim, according to prosecutors.

While not challenging the DNA findings, Bjerkes attorney has said police should have gotten a search warrant before submitting the straws for DNA analysis.

During trial and in his appeal, Leibig disagreed with rulings that said detectives could analyze DNA recovered from a discarded straw in the same way they can search for clues and evidence in garbage left outside a persons home.

In his petition to Virginias Supreme Court, Leibig said while courts have upheld the constitutionality of investigators harvesting evidence, including fingerprints from discarded garbage, Bjerkes case is different.

We leave traces of our genetic identity everywhere we go. These genetic traces, all of them capable of conveying extensive private information about us, are not abandoned in any traditional sense. These invisible troves of information are necessarily and unintentionally left behind. They can be easily collected, Leibig said.

Leibig argues a search warrant should be required before investigators can analyze DNA in the same way a search warrant is required before police can analyze the contents of a legally seized cellphone.

While cutting-edge technology is often used in law enforcement, Leibig says courts are often asked to set limits on whether usage violates a persons constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

It necessarily take a while for issues like this to work their way through courts, Leibig said.

Although police can lawfully follow people on a public street, Leibig said over time courts re-evaluate the reasonable expectation of privacy standard.

It was clear that people in society found the idea of GPS monitoring of the totality of their movements by the government substantially intrusive, and far different from being followed down the street in person, wrote Leibig.

In his conclusion, Leibig asks Virginias Supreme Court to address the issue, and overturn his clients conviction: At the present time there is no binding Virginia precedent about the Fourth Amendment implications of warrantless DNA testing of genetic material unintentionally shed in public.

Read more:

Man convicted of raping two lifeguards appeals to Va. Supreme Court over DNA collected from drinking straws - WTOP

By Gwynneth Redemann

WOODLAND, CA- Judge David Rosenberg here in Yolo County Superior Court last week denied a motion by the defense to suppress DNA evidence collected from a cup used by Lot Guerra during an interview at the Yolo County Sheriffs Office because, the judge said, Guerra did not have an expectation of privacy.

Lot Guerra, charged with multiple felonies including burglary, assault with intent to commit rape, and sexual battery, was transferred from Los Angeles to Yolo County on Aug 28.

According to testimony from Yolo County Detective Randall Krantz, Guerra arrived by car at the Yolo County Sheriffs Office, where he was offered some water after the six-hour car ride.

Guerra drank many cups of water during the interview. At the end of the interview, Detective Krantz booked the cups into evidence because the cups contained DNA evidence.

Private Defense Attorney Steve Whitworth asked Detective Krantz whether he was the officer that Mirandized his client Guerra, and Krantz said yes.

Whitworth continued, asking if in that Mirandizing, is there any conversation about DNA or abandonment of items that may have DNA on them? And Detective Krantz replied, No, there is not.

Whitworth followed up by asking if he ever informed Guerra that anything left behind in the room could be used against him. Again, Detective Krantz responded with a no.

Whitworth proceeded to ask about the details of the trip from Los Angeles to Yolo County, but Detective Krantz knew little about the trip because he was not the detective who was there.

The prosecution, led by Stephanie Allen and supervised by Deputy District Attorney David Robbins, called Corporal Ryan Bowler, another detective, in this case, to testify.

Allen asked Corporal Bowler about the details of the trip from LA to Yolo County, and Bowler said they had stopped twice during the six-hour drive. Bowler had provided Guerra with a meal from McDonalds that came with a medium drink. Other than this meal, Guerra was not provided any other food or drink.

According to Bowler, the group drove directly to the Yolo County Sheriffs Office and Guerra was offered a chance to use the restroom and drink water provided by the officers before the interview.

In the video recording of the interview provided by the prosecution, Guerra is seen drinking multiple cups of water. He is later escorted by a female police officer out of the room, while the cups are left behind on the table.

During the cross-examination, Defense Attorney Whitworth asked whether Bowler had told defendant Guerra that he could take the cups as his property. Bowler indicated that he had not told Guerra this information.

Whitworth then asked why [Bowler] provided Guerra a meal during their travels and if any other drinks had been provided to Guerra during the car ride.

Judge Rosenberg interjected, seemingly annoyed with the length of this motion hearing, stating, Because people get hungry. Next question?

Whitworth continued, asking Bowler youve been trained that if you deny a person food or drink or to use the bathroom [while in custody] that that could be coercive, correct?

The prosecution objected to this question, stating that it is clear that all procedures were followed and that she doesnt see how this is relevant to the cups. The question was sustained by Judge Rosenberg.

Whitworth continued, Did you offer Guerra any other drinks besides the drink that came with the meal?

Bowler stated, No.

And so for 6 hours, the only drink that you are aware of that he had, including the interview time, was the soda he drank with his meal, asked Whitworth.

It was eventually concluded that that was in fact the only drink that Guerra had between 8 a.m. and the time of the interview.

In the final comments of the motion, Whitworth stated, I dont think law enforcement can place citizens in a position where they take them, deprive them of food and drink, and then [later] provide them with food and drink and then use that as a weapon to pierce the Fourth Amendment or as evidence against them.

Judge Rosenberg stated, Its an issue I dont see that often. However, in viewing what Ive seen in the video and carefully reading the briefs submitted by counsel, in this particular case, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the used water cups that he drank from while he was in custodial interrogation.

The motion to suppress is denied.

This case will reconvene for a settlement conference on Dec. 6 in Yolo County.

Go here to read the rest:

Judge Denies Motion to Suppress DNA Evidence on Cup Used by Accused in Police Interview; Defense Claimed Client Denied Water on 6-Hour Trip, then...

In brief

On 18 November 2021, the European Commission ("Commission") further prolonged the Temporary Framework for COVID-19 State aid ("Temporary Framework") until 30 June 2022. This 6th Amendment has also added investment support measures and solvency support measures to support economic recovery and increase certain aid ceilings.

Background: In March 2020, the European Commission adopted the Temporary Framework to support the economy in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, which allows EU Member States to have State aid approved quickly by the Commission. It has since been amended six times: First, increasing possibilities for public support to research, test and produce products relevant to fight the COVID-19 outbreak. Second, to enable recapitalization and subordinated debt measures; and third, to further support micro, small and start-up companies and to incentivize private investments. A fourth amendment extended the coverage of the Temporary Framework again and prolonged its application into 2021. The fifth amendment prolonged the application of the Temporary Framework to the end of 2021, increased aid amounts that the Commission would approve and allowed for the conversion of limited amounts of repayable Temporary Framework aid to grants.

Key takeaways

The 6th Amendment prolongs the application of the Temporary Framework until 30 June 2022. In addition, it adds two new categories of support measures for which EU Member States can obtain quick Commission State aid approval:

In more detail

Prolongation

The Temporary Framework, which was set to expire on 31 December 2021, has now been prolonged until 30 June 2022 (except as noted otherwise). It remains subject to further extension if necessary.

Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager noted that "[t]he limited prolongation gives the opportunity for a progressive and coordinated phase-out of crisis measures, without creating cliff-edge effects, and reflects the projected strong recovery of the European economy overall."

Two new categories of support measures

The 6th Amendment includes two new categories of support measures that EU Member States may adopt to help companies recover:

These investment support measures can be granted by Member States until 31 December 2022.

Provided appropriate justifications are made by the Member State, the Commission may accept alternative selection and remuneration methods, higher aid amounts per company, or extend the application to investments to larger companies.

Aid under these solvency schemes can be granted until 31 December 2023.

Other notable amendments

In addition to the prolongation of the Temporary Framework and the two new categories of State aid measures added, the 6th Amendment:

Content is provided for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. This may qualify as "Attorney Advertising" requiring notice in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. For more information, please visit: http://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/disclaimers.

See original here:

European Union: COVID-19 State aid update - State aid Temporary Framework prolonged and additional aid for recovery possible (6th Amendment) -...

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of mans spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men.Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856-1941)

When Justice Louis D. Brandeis referred to the right to privacy as the right to be let alone, it was 1928. He was dissenting in a U.S. Supreme Court opinion called Olmstead v. United States, 277U.S. 438 (1928), in which federal agents tapped the telephone lines of Roy Olmstead and others and recorded their conversations about importing alcohol into the U.S. during Prohibition.

They did so without search warrants.

On the basis of the tapped conversations, Olmstead and his colleagues were convicted of conspiracy to violate federal law.

The Supreme Court upheld their convictions.

The issue in the case was whether the Fourth Amendments prohibition of searches and seizures without a warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause of crime includes surveillance.

When Brandeis dissented in Olmstead, telephones were novel and not in widespread personal use. It would be 39 years before the Supreme Court accepted Brandeis dissent as properly encapsulating the understanding of the Framers when it characterized surveillance as a search.

Stated differently, the language in the Fourth Amendment, which unambiguously prohibits the government from engaging in warrantless searches and seizures, was not interpreted so as to characterize government surveillance as a search until 1967, when the Supreme Court accepted Brandeis rationale.

Since then, it is commonplace that the government needs a warrant to engage in surveillance.

The warrant is a constitutional bulwark against fishing expeditions, and it requires the courts to defer to privacy.

I offer this brief constitutional history so as to address the abuse of the Fourth Amendment, and the consequences of that abuse.

Two weeks ago, the Defense Intelligence Agencyan arm of the Pentagon and one of 16 federal entities that spies on Americans acknowledged publicly that it uses commercial software to monitor the movements and conversations of those on whom it has chosen to spy.

And because it does so without warrants, it spies on whomever it wishes.

It claims that the language of the Fourth Amendment which protects the right of all people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects only restrains law enforcement and does not restrain the balance of the government.

Yet, the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to recognize that personal liberty stems from our humanity. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he referred to our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable from our human nature, and as gifts of the Creator.

The Bill of Rights, too, articulates that our rights are natural. The Ninth Amendment expressly commands that the enumeration of certain rights such as the freedoms of religion, speech and press shall not be construed by any government to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

Among the rights retained by the people never given away to the states or the federal government and thus protected by the Ninth Amendment, and since 1967 by the Fourth, is the right to privacy.

The Olmstead decision focused narrowly on whether listening to someones telephone conversations without a warrant is as unconstitutional as rummaging through the persons papers and effects without a warrant.

Brandeis understood that true happiness can only come from the exercise of personal liberty, and James Madison understood this when he wrote the Fourth Amendment.

This understanding, as recognized by the courts today, is that the right to privacy protects intellectual activities, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, sensations, and private communications about them.Who could be happy under a state of surveillance? Privacy is natural there are things we all do that are none of the governments business. Surveillance is totalitarian. It is the manifestation of the tyrants wish to know all about a potential opponent.

The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights is to keep the government at bay off the peoples backs, as Justice William O. Douglas wrote thereby protecting our natural state of freedom so that we can pursue happiness.

The Declaration of Independence underscores, and the Bill of Rights protects, the right to pursue happiness for individuals, not for governments.

Who can be happy while being observed by the government?

A watched person changes behavior and loses liberty on account of being watched.

The liberty to make unfettered choices, the right to shake a metaphorical fist in the tyrants face, the personal power to ignore what the government expects are all dissipated.

A watched person hesitates to exercise freedom.

The more the government gets away with surveillance without warrants, the more people will accept the servitude it brings.

Personal freedom is the unfettered power to exercise natural rights without the approval of the government or the consent of any other person. It is the means to happiness.

Yet, because we live in a society in which we need the governments permission to do nearly anything, is it any wonder that the government wants to know everything about us?

The government that spies continuously has large ears and insatiable eyes.

And on its face there is no smile.

Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame Law School, was the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year. He is Fox News senior judicial analyst on the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Network. He is the host of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Network. Napolitano also lectures nationally on the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, civil liberties in wartime, and human freedom. He has been published in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and numerous other publications. He is the author of five books on the U.S. Constitution. Read Judge Andrew P. Napolitanos Reports More Here.

Creators Syndicate Inc.

Originally posted here:

Govt That Spies Has Insatiable Appetite - KMJ Now

Rep. LaKeshia Myers (D-Milwaukee) has introduced a new bill to prevent the use of no-knock search warrants by Wisconsin law enforcement. The bill was named Breonnas Law after Louisville, Kentucky EMT Breonna Taylor, the 26-year-old who was killed during such a raid in March 2020.

It is most appropriate for us to begin Black History Month 2021 by introducing Breonnas Law, Myers said in a press statement. Breonna Taylors life was taken while she was in the comfort of her own home, through the use of a no-knock warrant. While Taylor was not the subject of the warrant, her life was mercilessly ended through no fault of her own. It is because of this that we call on Wisconsin legislators to end the use of no-knock warrants.

Wisconsin became the first state to authorize no-knock search warrants in 1997. Since their introduction, no-knock raids have created controversy around police transparency and use of force.

No-knock warrants are harmful to civilians and law enforcement officers alike, said Myers. Milwaukee police officer Matthew Rittner was killed in the line of duty while his tactical unit executed a no-knock warrant in February 2019. Because of a no-knock search warrant, a wife lost her husband, Milwaukee lost a police officer and a child lost its father.

These searches are being reconsidered at the federal and state levels. In Congress last session, Senate Republicans wanted to track their use, while a Democratic House bill, endorsed by the Congressional Black Caucus would have banned them on a federal level in drug cases and withhold federal policing grants to states that permit them in drug cases.

In 2020, a package of Juneteenth bills on police reform was forwarded by Gov. Tony Evers, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes and the the Legislative Black Caucus. It included a similar bill that prohibits no-knock search warrants issued under state law by requiring a law enforcement officer who is executing a search warrant to identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry, before entering the premises.

The Legislature did not take any action on these bills, instead forming a study committee that continues to meet but has not come out with its recommendations.

Myers new bill, as described in her co-sponsorship memo accompanying it, requires that a law enforcement officer executing a search warrant must, before entering the premises, identify himself or herself as a law enforcement officer and announce the authority and purpose of the entry. Under the bill, a law enforcement officer may execute a search warrant only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. unless a judge authorizes the execution of the search warrant at another time for good cause.

Given the increased focus on police reform and no-knock search warrants in particular the Wisconsin Legislative Council put out an Information Memorandum on the practice in Sept. 2020, reviewing its complicated relationship with the Fourth Amendment and case law. As a result, the no-knock search warrant, a product of the War on Drugs, is being reconsidered. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution giving citizens the right to be protected against unlawful search and seizure is replicated in the Wisconsin Constitution.

THE MORNING NEWSLETTER

Subscribe now.

Knock-and-announce requirements before police forcibly enter a persons home called the announcement rule in Wisconsin date back centuries to British common law, but exceptions to the rule have been carved out, including the no-knock search warrant, the memo states. Further, it notes, a 1995 case determined knock-and-announce was not a rigid, blanket rule, so no-knock searches are allowed as an exception that takes into account countervailing law enforcement interests.

The Wisconsin Professional Police Association Executive Director Jim Palmer has been quoted by multiple media outlets, as being open to reconsideration of no-knock warrants by police and by lawmakers. He told NBC-15 he doubts his group would fight for the warrants, as they are not used frequently in Wisconsin and can be dangerous for both police officers and residents.

Body camera use by law enforcement has made the public increasingly aware of no-knock search warrants, as more people are able to see footage of the technique in action.

The bills namesake, Taylor, was killed as law enforcement carried out a series of raids across the Louisville area. Police claimed they announced themselves when the raid began. Taylors boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, however, said officers did not do so, and he thought someone was breaking into their home as they slept. After a shot was fired by the boyfriend, wounding one officer, other officers fired numerous shots into the apartment, killing Taylor.

One of the detectives involved, Brett Hankison, was fired in June for wantonly and blindly firing his weapon, according to his termination letter. Taylors death brought to light the use of such raids, and place-based policing strategies that targeted areas being gentrified by the city.

As the state that created no-knock warrants, Wisconsin has the responsibility to be the state to end their use, Myers said. When you know better, you must do better, and this is a step in the right direction.

More here:

No-knock search warrants began in Wisconsin, Rep. Myers wants to end them here - Wisconsin Examiner

When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were sworn into office, it marked the first time in American history that Californians held two of the three highest offices in the federal government. No, President Biden is not from the Golden State, but Vice President Harris and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi both hail from the Bay Area. And with Attorney General Xavier Becerra holding a key cabinet position, officials from California now have a sizable role in influencing the Biden agenda.

The incoming administration is rightly prioritizing economic relief and Covid-19 vaccine deployment. On other issues, they'll have to navigate narrow Democratic majorities in Congress, in which some progressive policies could be nonstarters. To avoid gridlock, these high-ranking Californians can identify policies with broad, bipartisan support, perhaps taking a page out of their home state's playbook.

In recent years, California has become a national leader on privacy rights. Oakland, San Francisco, and Santa Clara County, among other municipalities, have spearheaded strong local laws to oversee governmental use of people's private information and data.

Gaps in privacy protections remain, however, and top Californians in Washington, D.C. can help plug them at the federal level. This is especially true of the "smart city" programs sprouting up across the country. These programs enable local governments to collect troves of personal data with few safeguards in place to prevent it from being mishandled or abused. For example, my organization, Oakland Privacy, closely monitors a data-sharing protocol deployed by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) called Mobility Data Specification (MDS).

MDS is a massive data-collection system that LADOT spent millions developing. It requires mobility companies to provide the city with real-time location data for their vehicles, including each rider's origin, route and destination. Such granular data makes it easy to identify and track riders, and can reveal sensitive personal information with just a handful of data points. LADOT hasn't provided a concrete reason for requiring this individualized information over safer alternatives, like aggregated data, nor did it seek public input before adopting the system. Department leaders were even discovered using an encrypted messaging service to communicate with each other while developing MDS.

Real-time, re-identifiable data like the kind collected through MDS is particularly ripe for abuse. This could range from law enforcement accessing the data to perpetuate harmful surveillance practices against communities of color, to a city employee using it to stalk a former partner. These are grave consequences, which is why the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are suing Los Angeles to halt MDS for violating the Fourth Amendment.

But Los Angeles isn't alone in overlooking privacy rights. In Pasadena and in Long Beach, police used automatic license plate readers and shared the data with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, despite pledging not to. In San Diego, the city deployed "smart streetlights" to supposedly monitor traffic, but they were used by police more than two dozen times to surveil Black Lives Matter protestors. Examples like these undercut California's standing as the pacesetter in securing privacy rights and reinforce the need for a smart cities solution that incorporates strong local oversight and federal protections.

Efforts to build so-called smart cities are not limited to Californiathey're popping up nearly everywhere, from Seattle and Chicago to Columbus and New York. With their impending influence over multiple levers of power in Washington, D.C., our Bay Area leaders should spearhead legislation that reins in misguided smart city programs. High-profile members of both parties have already signaled their interest. Such opportunities do not come around often, and California officials now have the chance to make their presence known on this important issue.

Tracy Rosenberg is the Advocacy Director for Oakland Privacy, a nonprofit watchdog group that works to defend the right to privacy and enhance oversight regarding the use of surveillance.

Read the original here:

Close the Gaps - East Bay Express

Getty Images

A recently published study showed that Black people are 3.6x more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people in the United States, and the gap is growing. The research, conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and compiled by Joslyn Law Firm between 2010 and 2018, suggests War on Drugs racism still permeates cannabis law enforcement, even though 1 in 3 Americans now live in a state where marijuana is legal.

RELATED:Will Cannabis Become Legal in 2021?

The difference between white and Black marijuana arrests rose by over 300% in 20 U.S. counties between 2010 and 2018, according to the study. In Carter, Tennessee, racial disparity in this department increased by 977%, making Black people 14x more likely to be arrested for marijuana than whites in 2018.

Of the 49 states reporting (Florida did not contribute to this study), the state with the highest racial disparity was Montana, where Black people were almost 10x more likely to be arrested for marijuana than white people. Kentucky, Illinois, Iowa, and West Virginia followed close behind, with the chance of arrest for Black people above 7x what it was for white people.

Two of these states have since legalized recreational marijuana, indicating that the issue has little to do with overall attitudes toward marijuana use in these states. Cannabis became legal in Montana this November, and Illinois legalized it January, 2020.

Recreational marijuana is illegal in Kentucky, Iowa, and West Virginia. Though West Virginia has a medical marijuana program now, it had not gone into effect during the time this data was collected.

RELATED: Where is cannabis legal in the United States? (Medical marijuana and CBD included)

The states with the lowest racial disparities in cannabis arrests were Colorado, California, and Oregon. Recreational cannabis has been made legal in each of these states within the years this data was collected.

Brian Joslyn, Owner of Joslyn Law Firm, said areas of the country with the highest racial disparity in marijuana arrests also tend to record vague and bizarre reasons for other charges against Black people.

All too often I see suspicious police reports that justify traffic stops and detentions of black people with suspicious justifications ultimately leading to a search and seizure of their persons. Its these kinds of suspicious justifications that I rarely see as much when the individual is white, Joslyn told GreenState. I believe the data clearly shows that black people are being targeted by police. It would be impossible to suggest otherwise.

Every year, roughly 700,000 marijuana-related arrests are made in the U.S, meaning this problem is effecting thousands of people every day.

Joslyn said he believes legalizing marijuana would only be the first step in erasing racial prejudice from cannabis charges, since law enforcement would continue to unlawfully detain and search a disproportionate number of Black people for drug impairment or other violations of cannabis law. Therefore, he believes a kind of deep clean of law enforcement around the country to be imperative for racial justice.

RELATED: The Difference Between Cannabis Legalization and Decriminalization, and Why it Matters

What needs to occur are policy changes within the police departments that train and instruct officers to only pull over or detain individuals for well-established violations of law, Joslyn said. In addition, all officers should be equipped with both cruiser cams and body cams so their arrests can be reviewed and verified, and our state legislatures need to further work to protect individuals Fourth Amendment rights through the passage of laws that would raise the standards for law enforcement to search ones persons or property.

By CriminalAttorneyCincinnati.com

Elissa Esheris Assistant Editor at GreenState. Her work has also appeared in The Boston Guardian, Brooklyn Paper, Religion Unplugged, and Iridescent Women. Send inquiries and tips to elli.esher@hearst.com.

Original post:

Is Americas Approach to Cannabis Racist? Study Shows Its Worse Than You Think - GreenState

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Thursday that a SWAT team member must face First Amendment and battery claims from reporters he tear-gassed while they were covering public unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in 2014.

SWAT team member Michael Anderson claims that the reporters had been ordered to disperse before he deployed the tear-gas. He also asserts that there wereprojectiles launched from the reporters area, leading him believe that there was an imminent threat to safety. He claims that he had arguable probable cause to believe that the reporters were refusing to disperse, obstructing officers performing their duties, and interfering with officers in a way that impacted officer safety. If this mistaken belief was objectively reasonable, Anderson wouldreceive qualified immunity.

However, in its opinionthe Eighth Circuit implied that this version of the facts is blatantly contradicted by video footage from the reporters, Ash-har Quraishi, Marla Cichowski, and Sam Winslade of the Al Jazeera America news network, as well as at least three other videos. The ruling affirms the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouris decision todeny Andersons motion for summary judgment and allow the plaintiffs to proceed:

The videos confirm the reporters version of the facts. They do not show dispersal orders or flying projectiles. They do not show orders to turn off the lights before the tear-gas. Rather, they show a peaceful scene interrupted by rubber bullets and tear-gas.Anderson presumes disputed facts in his favor, which this court cannot do because he moved for summary judgment. Taking the facts most favorably to the reporters, Anderson did not have arguable probable cause to use the tear-gas.

The video also contradicts Andersons claim that the Al Jazeera reporters were not engaged in activities protected by the First Amendment. The video supports the reporters claim that they were singled out by Anderson. A reasonable officer would have understood that deploying a tear-gas canister at law-abiding reporters is impermissible, the court said.

The court also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding their state-law battery claims, noting that it was possible that Anderson acted with more force than [was] reasonably necessary to disperse the reporters, given that they were not engaged in unlawful activity.However, the court denied the reporters Fourth Amendment claims because it has not been clearly established that tear-gassing amounts to a seizure.

The Eighth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Go here to see the original:

Federal appeals court allows reporters to sue SWAT officer who tear-gassed them during Ferguson protests - JURIST

The Fourth Amendment right to be free from "unreasonableseizure" includes the right to be free from unreasonable arrest or detainment. Does it also include the right to be free from what we might call unreasonable attempts or efforts at arrest or detainment? The late Justice Antonin Scalia thought that it did. "The mere grasping or application of physical force with lawful authority, whether or not it succeeded in subduing the arrestee," Scalia wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in California v. Hodari D. (1991), qualifies as a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Earlier this month, however, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a new Fourth Amendment that asks whether Scalia might have got it wrong.

In Torres v. Madrid (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held that no seizure occurred when officers with the New Mexico State Police shot Roxanne Torres twice in the back, because their bullets did not actually stop her from getting away. According to that court, "an officer's intentional shooting of a suspect does not effect a seizure unless the 'gunshotterminate[s] [the suspect's] movement or otherwise cause[s] the government to have physical control over him.'"

Torres was sitting in her car in her apartment building's parking lot when it went down. The officers were there to arrest somebody else. They claimed they approached her because she was acting suspiciously. According to Torres, she thought she was about to be carjacked, later testifying that the officers never identified themselves as they crowded her vehicle. Fearing for her safety, she drove away. The officers then shot her twice as she fled. She only learned that it was the police who pulled the trigger when she was arrested a day later at the hospital.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Torres v. Madrid on October 14. "Roxanne Torres was not seized by either [Officer] Janice Madrid or [Officer] Richard Williamson," New Mexico lawyer Mark Standridge told the justices. "At no time did the officers acquire possession, custody, or control over her. Indeed, [Torres] never stopped in response to the police action. As the officers did not seize [Torres], they cannot be held liable to her for excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

Unsurprisingly, the Court's most hawkish Fourth Amendment advocate, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, did not seem to find that position particularly palatable. "Counsel, there is an element to the Fourth Amendment that all of our cases, including Hodari, recognized by Justice Scalia," she said, "that has to do with the Fourth Amendment's protection of bodily integrity. It is why we call putting a needle in someone's arm a seizure that requires either probable cause or exigent circumstances, et cetera."

And that conception of bodily integrity, Sotomayor continued, includes "the seizure of the person with respect to the touching of that person because even a touch stops you. It may be for a split second, but it impedes yourmovement and offends your integrity."

What you are asking the Court to do, Sotomayor told Standridge, is "reject the clear line drawn by Hodari and say that Justice Scalia was wrong about what the common law showed." Sotomayor left little doubt that she was with Scalia on that one.

Read the original post:

Invoking Scalia, Sotomayor Presses for Broad Fourth Amendment Protections - Reason

To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

China's National People's Congress has approved theFourth Amendment to Chinese Patent Law on October 17, 2020. Theamended law will be effective from June 1, 2021. We also expectthat the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law and thePatent Examination Guidelines will also be amended accordingly,before the effective date of the amended law. These regulations andrules will provide more explanation and details regarding theAmendment.

Although the approved version of the Fourth Amendment issomewhat different from the previous versions, we do not think itis necessary to discuss these differences. Rather, we will discusskeys changes in the approved version as compared to the currentlaw. We haveparaphrased and highlighted inblue the key changes below,followed by ourcomments in black.

Article 2.4 Partial designs will be allowed.

A much welcomed change. It will provide flexibility to allapplicants and much convenience to applicants from countries wherepartial designs are allowed.

Article 15.2 For service-inventions, the state encouragesemployers to implement ownership incentives and adopt means such asequities, options, and profit sharing, etc., to allow the inventorsto reasonably share the benefits of innovation.

Although the provision is only an "encouragement",rather than a requirement, we do not think that it is necessary orproper. We think that the employers should be left freely, withinthe boundary of law, to decide on how to reward and remunerate theinventors. We look forward to more details.

Article 20.1 In exercising the application or patent right, oneshould follow the principle of honesty and credibility, but shallnot abuse the right to harm public interest or other'slegitimate rights.

We think that the stated principle is appropriate, but lookforward to further interpretation and details.

20.2 Abusing patent right, excluding or restricting competition,if constituting monopolistic conduct, shall be treated according toAnti-Monopoly Law of China.

This provision corresponds with the Anti-Monopoly Law.

Article 24.1 (1) Newly added exception to novelty-defeatingdisclosures: Disclosures made within 6 months of application dateand for public interest purposes during national emergency orextraordinary situation.

We think that a typical example of the exception would be forsomeone to publish a research paper regarding treatment or vaccinefor the corona virus before filing the relevant patent application,but look forward to further interpretation and details.

Article 29 Applicant may claim priority to its own first-filedChinese design patent application within six (6) months of thefirst filing and for the same subject matter.

Applicant can already do so in invention and utility modelpatent applications.

Article 42.1 Design patent term will be extended to fifteen (15)years, from the current ten (10) years.

It is generally believed that this provision will help clear theway for China to join the Hague Agreement, which other majorcountries have all joined.

42.2 For patents granted after four (4) years since applicationdate and three (3) years since request for substantive examination,applicant may request for patent term extension on the basis ofunreasonable delays during prosecution of the patent, except fordelays caused by the applicant.

We look forward to further details.

42.3 In order to compensate for time used for new drugevaluation and approval, the term of a relevant patent for anapproved new drug in China may be extended by up to five (5) yearsupon request by patentee. However, after the new drug entersmarket, the total remaining term of the relevant patent may notexceed fourteen (14) years.

A much welcomed provision for the pharmaceutical industry. Welook forward to further details.

Articles 50 52 Provisions regarding Open PatentLicenses, setting out mechanisms and procedures whereby patentowners can publish, through the CNIPA, their intentions to licensetheir patents to any interested party. Annuities will be reduced orwaived during the license period.

The provisions will help to further commercialize Chinesepatents. We look forward to more details.

Article 66.2 In an infringement action involving a utility modelor design patent before court or administrative agency, all partiescan submit the Patentability Assessment Report on their own.Currently only the patentee and interested party can do so uponrequest by court.

The report will be more important when enforcing utility modelor design patents.

Article 70.1 CNIPA, at the request of patentee or interestedparty, may handle patent infringement disputes that havesignificant impact nationwide.

We think this is an inappropriate enlargement of the CNIPA'sauthority and jurisdiction, but look forward to more details.

70.2 Patent administrative authority of a local government, atthe request of patentee or interested party to handle patentinfringement disputes, may combine cases involving the same patentwithin its jurisdiction. The authority may also request a higherlevel local government authority to handle cases involving the samepatent across different jurisdictions.

This is further streamlining of the administrativeauthority's handling of patent disputes.

Article 71.1 Patentee's loss and infringer's gain aretreated equally as basis for determining damage amounts.

This provides more option/freedom to the patentee in provingdamage amounts.

71.1 In case of willful infringing act, if the circumstances aresevere, the court may set the amount of damages to be one (1) tofive (5) times of the determined amount.

While this may provide more deterrence, it could also beexcessive.

71.2 Statutory damage amount will be under RMB 5 million (aboutUS$715,000). Currently the amount is under RMB 1 million.

A much welcomed change as damage amounts in most cases are stilldetermined based on the statutory amount.

71.4 In order to determine the amount of damages, if theplaintiff has done everything within its ability and the relevantaccount books and materials are mainly under the infringer'scontrol, the court may order the infringer to provide such accountbooks and materials. If the infringer does not provide or providefalse account books or materials, the court may determine thedamage amount by considering the plaintiff's request andevidence.

This will make it easier for the patentee to prove the damageamount.

Article 74.1 Statute of limitation for filing infringementlawsuit is three (3) years (currently two years) from when patenteeknew or should have known the infringement action and theinfringer.

This is in line with China's civil procedure law.

Article 76.1 During administrative review and approval for adrug, the party seeking drug approval and the patentee of arelevant patent may initiate legal proceeding with the court todetermine whether the drug falls within the protection scope of thepatent. The drug regulatory agency, within a specified period oftime, may decide whether to suspend the drug review and approvalprocess based on an effective judgment by the court.

This generally sets up a mechanism for settling patent disputesin drug regulatory review and approval process. But there are manydetails that will need to be clarified.

76.2 The parties may also request the CNIPA to make anadministrative decision regarding the patent dispute.

This is an enlargement of the CNIPA's jurisdiction. We lookforward to more details.

76.3 The Drug Regulatory Authority and the CNIPA will formulatespecific linkage methods regarding drug marketing approval andpatent dispute resolution during the approval period.

We look forward to more details.

As can be seen, the Fourth Amendment introduced a number ofmajor changes to the Chinese Patent Law. At the same time, theimplementation of these changes will largely depend oninterpretation and further details regarding the provisions. Welook forward to the corresponding Implementing Regulations by theState Council and the Patent Examination Guidelines by the CNIPA inthe coming months. We will keep you informed.

The content of this article is intended to provide a generalguide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be soughtabout your specific circumstances.

Read more here:

Main Points Of The Fourth Amendment To Chinese Patent Law (Approved On October 17, 2020, Effective From June 1, 2021) - Intellectual Property - China...

With increasing frequency, law enforcement is using unconstitutional digital dragnet searches to attempt to identify unknown suspects in criminal cases. In Commonwealth v. Dunkins, currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, EFF and the ACLU are challenging a new type of dragnet: law enforcements use of WiFi data to retrospectively track individuals precise physical location.

Phones, computers, and tablets connect to WiFi networksand in turn, the Internetthrough a physical access point. Since a single access point can only service a limited number of devices within a certain range, WiFi networks that have many users and cover larger geographic areas have multiple stationary access points. When a device owner moves through a WiFi network with multiple access points, their device seamlessly switches to the nearest available point. This means that an access point can serve as a proxy for a device owners physical location. As an access point records a unique identifier for each device that connects to it, along with the time the device connected, access point logs can reveal a devices precise location over time.

In Dunkins, police were investigating a robbery that occurred in the middle of the night in a dorm at Moravian College in eastern Pennsylvania. To identify a suspect, police obtained logs of every device that connected to the 80-90 access points in the dormabout one access point for every other dorm roomaround the time of the robbery. From there, police identified devices belonging to several dozen students. They then narrowed their list to include only non-residents. That produced a list of three devices: two appeared to belong to women and one appeared to belong to a man who later turned out to be Dunkins. Since police believed the suspect was a man, they focused their investigation on that device. They then obtained records of Dunkins phone for five hours on the night of the robbery, showing each WiFi access point on campus that his phone connected to during that time. Dunkins was ultimately charged with the crime.

We argued in our brief that searches like this violate the Fourth Amendment. The WiFi log data can reveal sensitive location information, so it is essentially identical to the cell phone location records that the Supreme Court ruled in Carpenter require a warrant. Just like cell phone records, the WiFi logs offered the police the ability to retrospectively track a persons movement, including inside constitutionally protected spaces like students dorm rooms. And just as the Carpenter court recognized that cell phones are essential for participation in modern life, accessing a college WiFi network is equally indispensable to college life.

Additionally, we argued that even if police had obtained a warrant, such a warrant would be invalid. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching a particular target. But in this case, police only knew that a crime occurredthey did not have a suspect or even a target device identifier. Assessing virtually the same situation in the context of a geofence warrant, two federal judges recently ruled that the governments application to obtain location records from a certain place during a specific time period failed to satisfy the Fourth Amendments particularity and probable cause requirements.

The polices tactics in this case illustrate exactly why indiscriminate searches are a threat to a free society. In acquiring and analyzing the records from everyone in the dorm, the police not only violated the defendants rights but they also wrongly learned the location of every student who was in the dormitory in the middle of the night. In particular, police determined that two women wholly unconnected to the robbery were not in their own dorm rooms on the night of the crime. Thats exactly the type of dragnet surveillance that the Fourth Amendment defends against.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences. In Pennsylvania and across the nation, public WiFi networks are everywhere. And for poor people and people of color, free public WiFi is often a crucial lifeline. Those communities should not be at a greater risk of surveillance than people who have the means to set up their own private networks. We hope the court will realize whats at stake here and rule that these types of warrantless searches are illegal.

Go here to see the original:

EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment - EFF

Nearly <https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> every American<https://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/> owns a cell phone that can track their every movement and store sensitive information. But this convenience doesnt mean Michiganders give up their expectation of privacy. On Nov. 3, voters have a chance to ensure that our right to privacy in digital matters is respected by law enforcement when they vote on Proposal 2.

This ballot proposal would require law enforcement to acquire a search warrant before accessing a persons electronic data and communications. This may seem like a commonsense protection of privacy. But, currently, law enforcement is able to access Michiganders data essentially at will.

This issue has been a big deal in Michigan for the better part of a decade. In 2011, as a result of suspected criminal activity in Detroit, the <https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> FBI acquired<https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/united-states-v-carpenter-supreme-court-decision> several months worth of Timothy Carpenters cellphone location records without a warrant. These records revealed over 13,000 locations Carpenter had visited, yet the FBI didnt even have to ask a judge to get that information.

Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union took on Carpenters case, which went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In 2018, the court held that Fourth Amendment protections apply to cellphone location records and that law enforcement must obtain a search warrant before accessing this sensitive information.

But heres the problem: The Supreme Courts decision only applied to location data. It didnt apply to the rest of the data that people access every day financial documents, photos, calendar appointments, and more. Law enforcement can still access this information without a warrant. In fact, law enforcement could conceivably access enough information to put together a profile of virtually every citizen in the state. Location data may be protected, but so much other data that paints an even better picture of a person is still open to access and abuse.

One thing is certain: Americans dont like the status quo. Approximately <https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> 88% of Americans<https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/> say it is important that there isnt anyone watching or listening to them without their permission. Unfortunately, the law hasnt caught up.

Other states have taken steps to solve this problem. It started in Missouri in 2014. After the passage of a bill in the state legislature, a remarkable 75%<https://time.com/3087608/missouri-electronic-privacy-amendment/> of voters added much broader data protections to the state constitution through a referendum.

Last year, Utah followed suit. Lawmakers introduced a bill stating that a government entity may not obtain, use, copy, or disclose any third-party data without first obtaining a warrant unless the owner has consented or a judicially recognized exception to a warrant exists. After unanimous support from the Utah Legislature, the bill became law.

Now Michigan has a chance to set the standard. In June 2019, Michigan state Sen. Jim Runestad introduced <http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G> Senate Resolution G<http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(zoatowoaywtmbnhskxax21bk))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SJR-G>, which is similar to the protection enacted in Missouri. After a year in the Michigan Legislature, it passed and has become <https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)> Michigan Proposal 2: Search Warrant for Electronic Data Amendment<https://ballotpedia.org/Michigan_Proposal_2,_Search_Warrant_for_Electronic_Data_Amendment_(2020)>.

Justice Samuel Alito once wrote, It would be very unfortunate if privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a better position than we are to assess and respond to the changes that have already occurred and those that almost certainly will take place in the future.

Rather than punt this issue to the slow-moving courts, its imperative that state legislatures continue discussing, as well as passing these updated protections for the electronic communications and data of various individuals.

Jarrett Skorup is director of marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market research and educational institute in Midland, MI. Connor Boyack is president of Libertas Institute, a free-market think tank in Utah.

Read the rest here:

Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century - The Oakland Press

Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws

INDIANAPOLIS A judge has dismissed IMPD from a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting death of Dreasjon Reed.

The lawsuit alleges four IMPD officers, the city of Indianapolis and IMPD used "excessive force" in violating Reed's Fourth Amendment rights.

The four officers listed are IMPD Chief Randal Taylor, IMPD Deputy Chief Kendale Adams, IMPD Officer De'Joure Marquise Mercer, and IMPD Officer Steven Scott.

IMPD claims Reed was running from police, shot at an officer, and the officer returned fire, killing Reed. The incident was caught on a live video on Facebook that Reed was filming at the time.

Reed's mother, Demetree Wynn, filed the federal lawsuit in June.

On Tuesday, Oct. 27, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson dismissed IMPD from the lawsuit, citing that city agencies are protected from certain laws.

"Defendants argue that the IMPD is not a suable entity, and therefore all claims against it must be dismissed. [Filing No. 16 at 3.] Specifically, Defendants assert that although municipal corporations have the capacity to sue and be sued under Indiana law, their individual departments and agencies do not, and courts have consistently recognized that the IMPD is not suable except in the context of lawsuits for access to public records, which is not the case here."

Here are the claims that have been dismissed from the lawsuit:

Following the court's decision, here is what remains in the wrongful death lawsuit:

Originally posted here:

IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit - WTHR