text:
Pune start-ups suffer from lack of sales and marketing expertisehttps://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/pune-start-ups-suffer-from-lack-of-sales-and-marketing-expertise/
Pune start-ups suffer from lack of sales and marketing expertise
Most of the start-ups in Pune are either in the hyperlocal e-commerce or e-commerce segment with the city witnessing the growth of product start-ups also in large numbers.
Written by Partha Sarathi Biswas | Pune | Published: November 20, 2015 12:10:20 am
Pune: City units of political parties gear up for Maharashtra polls
Pune: Cop on duty abducted, thrashed by three, 1 held
Army recruitment scam: Probe reveals involvement of three serving jawans, one posted in Pune
Pune's start-up ecosystem, though vibrant, appears to be loosing out both in funding and volume. The recent Start-ups Landscape Report published by Nasscom shows that Pune has at least six per cent of the start-ups in the country, with the report identifying lack of sales and marketing expertise as a significant handicap for the city's start-ups.
Nasscom's report had tracked 4,200 start-ups across the country and found that over 66 per cent of the start-ups are concentrated in the cities of Bengaluru, Mumbai and National Capital Region. Bengaluru leads the chart with 26 per cent concentration of the start-ups, while NCR and Mumbai have 23 and 17 per cent of the total start-ups of the country. Hyderabad has pipped both Pune and Chennai with seven per cent concentration of the start-ups. The decision of the government of Telanaga to form incubation center T-Hub to accommodate 1,500 companies has played a pivotal role in developing Hyderabad as a preferred start-up hub in the region.
[related-post]
Most of the start-ups in Pune are either in the hyperlocal e-commerce or e-commerce segment with the city witnessing the growth of product start-ups also in large numbers. As per the report, Pune last year has seen funding worth $80-90 million, while Bengaluru, NCR and Mumbai witnessed 93 per cent of the total funding seen in the country till the third quarter of the present financial year. Although Pune seems to have a strong talent base, one of its major drawbacks is the lack of strong sales and marketing expertise. Maneesh Bhandari, director, Pune operations of CIIE (IIM Ahmedabad's Center for Innovation Incubation and Entrepreneurship), said Pune traditionally has been the technical center or the back office center for the IT industry. "The city was never the sales or marketing head of most companies so that talent pool naturally has not developed much," he said. Bhandari said Pune also does not have early adopter customers for start-ups.
1 Grave of Mastani: Hindus call it samadhi, Muslims mazaar
2 Proud Pogarwadi village bids adieu to its battle hero, Colonel Santosh Mahadik
3 For first time, nearly 1,200 junior colleges to undergo inspection in Pune


N-bomb was discovered in 2003 by chemist Ralf Heim at the Free University of Berlin, Germany. It was derived from a group of drugs called the 2C family of phenethylamines (PEA).
The 2C PEA, originally made in labs in the 1970s where scientists were studying brain activity on rats, produces hallucinations and mind-altering experiences similar to LSD.
Drug dealers produce various versions of N-bomb in secret laboratories or import them in bulk from China, India and other countries. Manufacturers vary the formula in attempts to get around the government bans, and users never know what they are taking or how potent it will be.


Having typos and grammatical issues is the easiest way to take a reader out of your book. Make sure your story reads well and won't trip up readers with solid editing. Please let us know the length of your manuscript for the full bill.
Catches mistakes, typos, grammar issues, punctuation and words that seem out of place or misused.


text:
Q: Makefile simple rule how to Is there a simple way to achieve the following with a simple suffix rule (or other way)?
SRC = a.c b.c c.c d.c e.c
ASM = a.s b.s c.s d.s e.s

$(ASM) : $(SRC)
   gcc -S -O0 a.s a.c
   gcc -S -O0 b.s b.c
   ...
   gcc -S -O0 e.s e.c

A: You should probably split the target for every assembly output, something along the lines of (not tested):
SRC = a.c b.c c.c d.c e.c
ASM = $(SRC:.c=.s)

%.s: %.c
    gcc -S -O0 $<

Considering that gcc -S x.c produces an x.s by default (see gcc(1)).

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Create your Account. Its free and it only takes a minute.
At AutoKartz.com all products are 100% genuine and brand new. The pictures shown of the product are generic in nature, the actual product may vary as per vehicle specification.
The product comes with AutoKartz Guarantee. If the product has any fitment issues / defects; we will replace the same else refund the order.
* Cash on Delivery (COD) facilities are limited to certain pin codes only.
** Installation assistance available in most cities, ask our service agents for any further assistance.


Château La Tour du Pin Figeac, Pomerol is not a member of Wein‑Plus yet.
By creating Château La Tour du Pin Figeac saved filter, you will see relevant matches on your home screen.
The winery is located in Saint-Emilion in the same area (Bordeaux). Once it was part of the Château Figeac (see history there), from 1879 the Château La Tour Figeac was separated. Three years later, two confusingly identically named goods called Château La Tour-du-Pin-Figeac were separated from this severed part (see the other part below) Château La Tour-du-Pin-Figeac (Giraud-Bélivier), The objective estate was built in 1947 by Antoine Moueix Bought (family empire). Although "Moueix" was mentioned on the label, it was not an official part of the name. Finally, in June 2007, the estate went to the owners of the Château Cheval Blanc, which in 2009 then 50% to the luxury goods group LVMH sold.
The previously classified as "Grand Cru Classé" operation was outclassed in 2006, but opposition was raised. However, the declassification was confirmed in 2012. The vineyards cover nine hectares of vines with Merlot (60%), Cabernet Franc (30%), Malbec and Cabernet Sauvignon (10%). The long-lived red wine is aged for 12 to 15 months in one-third new oak barrels. The second wine is called "Clos La Fleur Figeac".


text:
Golden Rockets
Average Vernon renters aren't earning enough to own
Housing needs assessment looks at gaps, city weighs rental restrictions
The need for affordable housing continues to build in the community.
Data from a Regional District of North Okanagan housing needs assessment shows the median household renter income ($32,976) is lower than the necessary median income ($38,300) to buy an apartment (based on payment to income ratio of 30 per cent). The necessary median household income for semi-detached ($78,600); and single-family homes ($156,800) is unattainable for renters.
When comparing household renter income to rental stock, the report also shows there is a shortage of more than 1,000 apartments in the less-than $500 month rental range.
"This is a very significant problem in Vernon to address," Coun. Kelly Fehr said, during council's review of the report Dec. 14.
Mayor Victor Cumming says the city does have some help on the way.
"We have some things coming on stream in 2021 to meet some of those needs," Cumming said.
READ MORE: Affordable housing moves to Vernon, Okanagan Indian Band
One area the inventory does not include is illegal suites. There are approximately 250 licensed suites, and about 700 illegal suites, according to staff.
"For the most part they are getting $1,200 for a one-bedroom suite and it's not even a legal suite," Coun. Kari Gares said.
One major reason a lot of suites are legal is the city has a restriction that they must be owner-occupied.
Gares (who is a mortgage broker) attempted to have that restriction removed, but it was defeated by council.
"We have no legal ground to stand on for that," she said.
There are many issues with illegal suites, but Coun. Scott Anderson says added restrictions will only hurt homeowners.
"It may be the difference between someone keeping a house to not keeping a house because they need that suite in order to pay for their mortgage," he said.
It's a complicated issue, as Coun. Akbal Mund pointed out.
"I've had many realtors ask me why investors cant buy homes here because they have to live in them. But then you have neighbours wondering how a property is managed with no homeowner there."
READ MORE: Vernon soon to be home to more affordable housing
@VernonNews
jennifer@vernonmorningstar.com
Entire Penticton block listed for sale at $3.15 million
Two months later, family, friends of missing Manning Park hiker continue to search
Vaccination underway in Golden
Long-term care residents and staff have been prioritized, April is the goal for public vaccination
Golden adds 7 cases in first week of 2021; BC CDC
The numbers are down from 14 the week before
Salmon Arm and Vernon see increase in new COVID cases, curve flattening elsewhere
The rate of new cases is levelling off in Kelowna, Penticton and Revelstoke.
Penticton mayor and MLA concerned about new BC Housing project
'Penticton already has its fair share' of BC Housing projects
CMHA Kelowna offers tips for managing winter blues during COVID-19
CMHA says it's important to take care of mental well-being during these times
Explore The Golden Star
Kimberley Bulletin
Golden News
Golden Weather
Golden Classifieds
© 2021, The Golden Star and Black Press Group Ltd.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The BuffPro electric polisher was designed by detailers for detailers, and is the only electric drum-style polisher on the market. The drum rotates axially making it literally impossible to create 'swirl' marks, meaning even inexperienced or novice users can achieve professional results every time. It's well balanced and ergonomically designed to ensure the best possible user experience, and can be used for long periods of time with minimal discomfort. It offers considerable man-hour savings versus traditional rotary and orbital polishers and it suitable for a wide range of applications, including sanding, compounding, polishing and finishing.
Just to let you know that the Buff Pro virginity was broken last week and also used a couple of times this week. A fantastic tool, not only does it reduce man hours but the results are excellent too. Definitely worth every penny, I don't think the literature and videos available do the tool enough justice, really does need first hand experience to be believed.


Birth 1903-08-24 Meeniyan, Victoria, Australia Named after paternal aunt's husband, Norman McLean.
Residence 1921 Lockhart, New South Wales, Australia Living with parents.
Residence 1937 Frankston, Victoria, Australia Clyde St.
Occupation 1939 Frankston, Victoria, Australia Boiler attendant at the Frankston Orthopaedic Hospital.


text:
<resources>
    <string name="app_name">CustomMapLib</string>
    <string name="title_activity_maps">Map</string>
</resources>

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Re: Can't get USB BDM to work on new install
8-16 bit: Can't get USB BDM to work on new install
mke_et
Contributor IV
Our 'workshop' machine barfed. Well, not totally, but enough that I want to get off it before it becomes terminal.
So, out came plastic and now there's a new E-Machines 3Gig Celeron machine with Windows XP Home sitting there.
Ok, took all the source and everything over. Then installed the CW 3.1 that came with my BDMs on the thing. Then the updates. Then the driver for USB. I copied over my custom license file.
Great. Builds, developement, and assembly work great. And fast.
But I can't find the 'target' to program anything. The Hardware Manager says the BDM is installed and working, and it appears under the Jungo the way it should. But when I go to do anything it says the device is missing or may not have power.
I've tried everything to make it work. It's not critical yet, as I still have the old machine sitting there, flakey as it is, and it still works. (I went back to check) But it's like playing the lottery to get that thing to boot. Besides, it's an old Win98 machine at 500Mhz and sooooo sssllloooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Any ideas? I'm stumped.
Message Edited by CrasyCat on 2007-04-13 01:37 PM
We finally got it working. Have no idea why it failed, or why it started working.
We tried reinstalling stuff. We tried changing to other targets. We were just about to uninstall the whole thing and start over and after the last reset (we must have reset the machine 10 times) it worked. So far it's stayed working.
I can only guess that it was one of those drivers where step 1 makes step 2 work after a reset, and then step 2 (only after it works) makes step 3 work after a reset...
I swear, it must have been 10 resets.
If you used several USB devices from this family, the trick could be it doesn't take the good one.
On the list in CW, try and select another "USB-PExxxxx".
Personally I wrote the number on the box itself because I was bored having the guess which time if the one I connected was 5011387 or 4872256, if you see what I mean.


text:
Q: "Request does not exist" creating form symfony2 I'm noob in php and symfony2.
I'm trying to create a form following the tutorial http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/forms.html and some other tutos.
I received "500 internal error", i don't know when i fail and i'm breaking my brain. Need help, plz
log:
[2015-10-16 23:35:27] request.INFO: Matched route "nueva_serie". {"route_parameters":{"_controller":"Acme\\AxialBundle\\Controller\\SeriesController::nuevaAction","_route":"nueva_serie"},"request_uri":"http://pruebas.com/nueva-serie/"} []
[2015-10-16 23:35:27] security.INFO: Populated the TokenStorage with an anonymous Token. [] []
[2015-10-16 23:35:27] request.CRITICAL: Uncaught PHP Exception ReflectionException: "Class Acme\AxialBundle\Controller\Request does not exist" at /home/jjrojo/estigia/vendor/sensio/framework-extra-bundle/EventListener/ParamConverterListener.php line 83 {"exception":"[object] (ReflectionException(code: 0): Class Acme\\AxialBundle\\Controller\\Request does not exist at /home/jjrojo/estigia/vendor/sensio/framework-extra-bundle/EventListener/ParamConverterListener.php:83)"} []
[2015-10-16 23:35:27] request.INFO: Matched route "_wdt". {"route_parameters":{"_controller":"web_profiler.controller.profiler:toolbarAction","token":"884636","_route":"_wdt"},"request_uri":"http://pruebas.com/_wdt/884636"} []

routing.yml :
    nueva_serie:
    path:     /nueva-serie/
    defaults: { _controller: AcmeAxialBundle:Series:nueva}

Here is my action controller in SeriesController:
    public function nuevaAction(Request $request)
    {
        $request = $this->getRequest();

        $serie = new Serie();
        $form = $this->createForm(new SerieType(), $serie);
        if($request->getMethod() == 'POST')
        {
            $form->bindRequest($request);
            if($form->isValid()){
                //get data and flush
                return $this->redirect($this->generateURL('lista'));
            }
        }

        return $this->render('AcmeAxialBundle:Series:nueva.html.twig', array(
        'form' => $form->createView(),
        ));
    }

The type, SerieType.php:
    <?php
    namespace Acme\AxialBundle\Form\Type;
    use Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractType;
    use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilder;
    class SerieType extends AbstractType
    {
    public function buildForm(FormBuilder $builder, array $options)
    {
        $builder->add('titulo')
                ->add('imagen')
                ->add('descripcion');
    }
    public function getName()
    {
        return 'form_serie';
    }
    }

and the nueva.html.twig
    {% block body %}
    <form action="{{ path('nueva_serie') }}" method="post">
        {{ form_widget(form) }}
    <input type="submit" />
    </form>
    {% endblock %}

Thanks for your help.

A: You file is missing this simple use statement:
use Symfony\Component\HttpFoundation\Request;
However: there's no point in passing Request through the function when you are using $request = $this->getRequest() within that same function. It's redundant. So really you could just do this:
public function nuevaAction()
{
    $request = $this->getRequest();
    ...


These Mac ROM scarves will boot up your fashion game.
Code to keep your neck warm.
You could safely assume that computer hackers and people who knit have little to talk about. One activity is clearly analog and seemingly old-fashioned while the other pre-occupies the mind of a tech geek.
Fabienne Serriere blows up that assumption by being both. She combines the two rather different activities to make eye-catching scarves imprinted with Mac ROM code.
ROM is built-in computer memory containing data that allows users to boot up or turn on their machines. The codes vary from computer to computer but in the case of Macs, Apple engineers hardcoded now-familiar images into the ROM, including happy-faced Macs and floppy disks.
A hacker friend of her's writes code to convert the 0s and 1s of ROM to pixels and Serriere selects interesting slices for the print to upload to her 3,000-pound industrial knitting machine in her Seattle studio.
A conversation with Serriere quickly reveals a curiosity that will not be pigeonholed. She has a playful passion for math, vintage computers, and diving into odd challenges just to see what happens.
KnitYak started in 2015 when Serriere raised more than $125,000 on Kickstarter to purchase an industrial knitting machine to make computational scarves featuring cellular automata, the mathematical patterns of cells on a grid.
The idea of marrying lines of code with lines of thread started a few years before then when she successful hacked a knitting machine at a hackathon.
She has been hacking knitting machines ever since. In order to transfer algorithmic designs to the surface of the looped fiber, she has to circumvent the code that controls the machine to get it to respond to codes on her computer.
Serriere also makes scarves featuring the enchanting fractal curls found in a particular set of complex numbers known as the Mandelbrot set.
ROM code from a Quadra 660AV Mac.
Her scarves are an acrylic, mostly black and white knit and made in small batches. Even at $109, the scarves sell-out fast. Only one Mac scarf remains from the holiday season and she is currently working on new inventory that will hit the KnitYak website soon.
The Mac ROM codes shine as a fashion accessory because of the hard-coded icons. One scarf features the code from a Power Mac 5200 with Mac characters both happy and sad. It also includes a series of disk images and the data tracks that frame the icons form the shape and flow of the print on the scarf.
ROM code from the PowerBook 190cs.
Other slices come from the ROM of a Macintosh IIfx, another from the PowerBook 190cs. Scarves made from slices of code from the Quadra 660AV Mac feature large numbers from 0 to 6.
Macs happy and sad from the Power Mac 5200.
Her machine produces a scarf in 25 minutes, then she puts in another 15 minutes to hand-finish the ends. Each scarf comes with a printed copy of the source code.


Our common interest is our woodlands. We have a strong commitment to sustainable forestry and we encourage other woodland owners to have the same commitment. We develop public appreciation for the value of our woodlands in the economy and overall welfare of Wisconsin.
Our purpose is to encourage sustainable forest management on Wisconsin's private woodlands. Our mission is to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy the beauty and utility of the woodlands. Our volunteer efforts make this happen.
woods, now it is our turn to help our neighbors and fellow woodland owners.
Our service is not dull and boring because we make it cheerful and exciting! We take advantage of the time spent pursuing common goals to enjoy each others company, laugh, joke, and smile. We remain open minded, honest, caring, and welcoming to all. We learn new skills and express our values in meaningful activities.
Our family bonds are strengthened as a result of our woodland labors of love and we bring that influence to our volunteer efforts with WWOA. We volunteer with our friends and family to bring us closer together and to be around people who inspire us.


Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in the pediatric age: the role of the anesthesiologist.
Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome in the pediatric age: the role of the otorhinolaryngologist.
Surgeons' preferences and anxiety levels in paediatric adenotonsillectomy: European perspective.


text:
WebsitePatents
Searching for patents
Applying for a patent
Law & practice
Court practices
Boards of Appeal _boa_
User consultations
Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court
BoA bibliographic file
Search decisions
2020 decisions
Enlarged Board of Appeal
President of the Boards of Appeal
About the Boards of Appeal
Boards of Appeal
Contact us using an online form
All contact information
Frequently asked questions about the Boards of Appeal
Check the calendar of oral proceedings
T 0239/16 (Zoledronic acid/NOVARTIS) of 13.9.2017
Date of decision:
IPC class:
A61K 31/663
A61P 19/08
Language of proceedings:
Download and more information:
Decision text in EN (PDF, 589.377K)
Documentation of the appeal procedure can be found in the Register
Bibliographic information is available in:
Title of application:
Method of administering bisphosphonates
Applicant name:
Novartis Pharma GmbH
Opponent name:
Generics [UK] Limited
Sanovel Ilaç Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.
Taylor Wessing LLP
Board:
Headnote:
Relevant legal provisions:
European Patent Convention Art 54(2)
European Patent Convention Art 56
Rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal Art 12(1)
Public availability of document (yes)
Main and auxiliary request: novelty - (yes)
Main and auxiliary request: inventive step - (no)
Cited decisions:
Citing decisions:
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. European patent No. 1 591 122 is based on European patent application No. 05012711.7. This is a divisional application of parent application No. 01940580.2, filed as an international application on 18 June 2001 and claiming priority from US applications No. 09/597,135 of 20 June 2000 and No. 60/267,689 of 9 February 2001.
II. The following documents, cited during the opposition and appeal proceedings, are referred to below:
(6) WO95/30421
(8) Wimalawansa et al., Bone, 1998, 23(5), abstract WG19, S648
(9) Boutsen et al., Bone, 1998, 23(5), abstract T470, S313
(10) Vasikaran et al., Bone, 1995, 17(6), 517-520
(11) Fleisch, Academic Press, 2000 Ed. 4, pages 8-11, 30-51, 128, 143-149, 152 and 181
(19) Green, BJCP Supplement, 1996, 16-18
(20) Müller et al., Drug Res., 1998, 48(1), 81-86
(26) Filipponi et al., Bone, 2000, 26(3), 269-274
(27) Hooper et al., NSW Ther. Ass. Group Inc., 2000, 1-28
(30) EP-A-275 821
(31) Lunar Corporation, "Lunar News", April 1997, 1-47
(33) Heikkinen et al., JBMR, 1997, 12(1), 103-110
(37) Extracts from trial transcripts of Hospira UK Ltd. vs Novartis AG and Generics (UK) Ltd (trading as Mylan) vs Novartis AG, HC11 E C04491 & HC 12 C02558
(38) The Pink Sheet, February 2000, 62(8), "In Brief"
(40) Khan et al., JBMR, 1997, 12(10), 1700-1707
(41) Declaration of Prof. Russell
(44) Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) issued by the EMA for Aclasta
(46) Miller, Clinical Therapeutics, 2005, 27(4), 361-376
(48) Mortensen et al., J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 1998, 83(2), 396-402
(55) Information for the patient concerning the clinical study 42446 02 041, pages 1/6-6/6
(57) Affidavit of Prof. Leon Verbruggen
(59) Declaration of Prof. Ringe, 24 August 2015
(69a) Document relating to infringement proceedings initiated by Novartis AG et al. against Teva Pharma B.V. et al. in 2014 in France, 3 pages
(69b) Extract of Document relating to a stay of proceedings before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, March 2016, 3 pages
(70) Reid et al., The Lancet, 1988, 1144
(71) EMEA scientific discussion (Aclasta), 1-37
(72) Second declaration of Prof. Ringe, 8 June 2016
(73) Declaration of Prof. Böger, 8 June 2016
(74) Compston, BMJ, 1994, 309, 711-715
(75) Lin, Bone, 1996, 18(2), 75-85
(76) Reginster et al., The Lancet, 1989, 1469-1471
(77) Writs of summons in France filed by Novartis AG et al.
(77a) Additional brief sheet filed by Biogaran
(89) The Pharmaceutical Codex, 12th edition, Ed. W. Lund, The Pharmaceutical Press, 1994, 342-349
(92) Declaration of Mr Fanucci, 15 March 2017
(94) Third declaration of Prof. Ringe, 4 August 2017
III. The appeals lie from the interlocutory decision of the opposition division that the patent could be maintained in amended form based on auxiliary request 1 filed during oral proceedings before the opposition division on 28 October 2015.
IV. The proprietors (Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma GmbH) and opponents 1 (Generics [UK] Ltd), 3 (Sanovel Ilaç Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.), 4 (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.) and 5 (Taylor Wessing LLP) each filed notice of appeal against this decision, as well as statements of grounds of appeal. Opponent 2 (Actavis PTC ehf) did not appeal.
V. With their reply of 24 October 2016, the appellant-proprietors resubmitted the main request and auxiliary request 1 on which the decision under appeal was based. They further resubmitted auxiliary requests 2 to 7, filed during oral proceedings before the opposition division on 28 October 2015.
VI. By communication dated 17 May 2017 the board informed the parties of its decision to enlarge itself to three technically qualified members and two legally qualified members in accordance with Article 9 RPBA.
VII. Oral proceedings were held before the board on 13 September 2017. At the beginning of the oral proceedings opponent 2 withdrew its opposition and appellant-opponent 4 withdrew its opposition and its appeal. During oral proceedings the appellant-proprietors withdrew their auxiliary requests 2 to 7.
VIII. Claim 1 of the main request, filed on 24 October 2016, reads as follows:
"1. Zoledronic acid or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or any hydrate thereof for use in a method of treating osteoporosis in which the zoledronic acid or the pharmaceutically acceptable salt therefore or the hydrate thereof is administered intravenously and intermittently and in which the period between administrations is about one year."
Claim 2 of the main request defines:
"2. A composition comprising zoledronic acid, a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof or any hydrate thereof for use in a method of treating osteoporosis, wherein the composition is administered intermittently and in which the period between administrations is about one year."
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 is identical to claim 1 of the main request.
IX. The arguments of the appellant-proprietors which are relevant to the present decision may be summarised as follows.
Accelerated processing
With letter dated 18 August 2016, the appellant-proprietors objected to accelerated processing of the appeal. They considered that acceleration was not justified. A significant number of appeals had been filed with the board prior to the present appeal, and those should be heard first. The litigation pending in France was limited to a finding with respect to European patent No. 1 296 689, which was not the patent in suit. The case in Slovakia was not relevant, since this contracting state was not designated in European patent No. 1 296 689 and the patent in suit. Neither appellant-opponent 1 nor former appellant-opponent 4 was party to the litigation in France and Slovakia. If the parties to the national proceedings had had an interest in the present appeal proceedings, they could have intervened pursuant to Article 105 EPC.
Admission of documents
Documents (70), (72) and (94) were not to be admitted. Document (70) could and should have been filed during opposition proceedings; it could not be seen as a reaction to the impugned decision. Document (72), filed after the statement of grounds of appeal, had been submitted without any indication of its purpose or relevance. Document (94), filed only very shortly before the oral proceedings, could not be seen either as a response to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA or as a response to the previous written submissions of the appellant-proprietors. As its contents were complex, in accordance with Article 13(1) and (3) RPBA it was not to be admitted.
Public availability of document (55)
Document (55), providing information for the patient and including a patient consent form for Novartis study 42446 02 041, had not been made available to the public. It was a private document provided only to patients in the context of their possible participation in the clinical trial. The appellant-proprietors considered that there was a special relationship between the trial sponsors, the patients and the supervising doctors, although no explicit confidentiality agreement had been set up. The case law of the Boards of Appeal confirmed that there were instances where a tacit secrecy agreement applied. The present situation was similar to the one considered in decision T 1081/01. Decision T 1057/09 was also relevant in this context. The fact that document (55) had been provided to patients asked to participate in the study could thus not be equated to the public availability of said document within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC. Furthermore, a special relationship also existed between the patients and their family members and family doctors. There was also no evidence that a single patient had actually disclosed the content of document (55) to someone else. Document (55) had thus clearly not been made available to the public.
Document (6) did not disclose the effective treatment of osteoporosis. It concerned distinct medical indications and mentioned osteoporosis in a very general manner by cross-referencing the treatment of osteoporosis for purposes relating to dosing.
Document (55) was merely a plan for a clinical study. The claims under consideration were medical use claims. The disclosure of document (55) could not be novelty-destroying, since the outcome of the study was not disclosed and therefore no clinical benefit either, similar to the situation in decisions T 158/96, T 1859/08 and T 2506/12. The appellant-proprietors pointed out that zoledronic acid had never been disclosed as being effective in any treatment regimen for osteoporosis.
Inventive step
Starting from document (55) the appellant-proprietors considered the technical problem to be the provision of an effective treatment with good patient compliance.
The study arm of document (55) relating to a once-yearly dosage regimen would not have been considered by the skilled person for the following reasons: There was no disclosure anywhere in the prior art that zoledronate was efficacious in any dosage for the treatment of osteoporosis in humans; animal models could provide only limited data for an effective treatment, and extrapolation from other conditions was not possible. Secondly, it was well-known in the art that it was not possible to extrapolate specific biological properties, e.g. the duration of action, from one bisphosphonate to another; and thirdly, no successful once-yearly treatment with any bisphosphonate was known for osteoporosis. Considerations involving the potency of the various bisphosphonates were mere speculation.
The appellant-proprietors stressed that it was important to consider biomarkers when assessing the actual effect of a drug at any particular point in time. Bone mineral density (BMD) had a certain lag time, both at the beginning and at the end of the treatment, and was thus only a useful indicator once a successful activity of a drug had been established.
Since there was no evidence available at the time, document (55) could merely lead to a "hope to succeed". There was no basis for a "reasonable expectation of success" in the sense that a particular dosage regimen of zoledronic acid would be expected to be continually effective, evidenced by biomarkers and BMD; reference was made to decisions T 2506/12, T 293/07, T 158/96 and T 715/03.
In addition to the line taken in these cited decisions it was also important to consider the set-up of the study disclosed in document (55). Out of the five study arms three involved three-monthly dosing. The skilled person would thus consider that the three-monthly dosing interval was the most likely to succeed. There was no indication in document (55) that would lead the skilled person to the expectation that effective treatment would be provided in the once-yearly study arm. The once-yearly arm might have been a further control to check when the biomarkers would start to drop.
The appellant-proprietors stressed that the skilled person was not led to an expectation of success of the once-yearly study arm by the disclosure of the other documents on file. In particular, documents (11), (46), (40), (41), (31), (48), (59) and (72) were discussed. Document (11), which was a leading textbook, clearly stated that it was not possible to extrapolate from one bisphosphonate to another (page 30, last paragraph). It also described the three important aspects of the treatment, i.e. the bisphosphonate administered, the dose and the length of treatment (page 148, second paragraph). It was clear from the speculative outlook given on page 181 that the optimal regimen for the treatment of osteoporosis was not known. Document (46), post-published by several years, showed that in 2005 it was still opined that bisphosphonates differed from one another in their physiochemical and biological characteristics, which all affected the duration of action (page 363, left column, first paragraph, and page 364, right column, end of first paragraph). Moreover, the longest duration of action was considered to be six months. Document (40), an open, not controlled study, based its conclusion on questionable data sets. The passage bridging the left and middle columns on page 31 in document (31) was unfounded speculation. The statements in expert declaration (59) were not supported by any literature. Also, the information presented in the table on page 3 of declaration (72) was inconsistent. In that table the least potent bisphosphonate could be seen to be effective over 24 months, probably due to the fact that biomarkers had not been assessed. Document (48) showed that a very potent bisphosphonate, risedronate, had a duration of action no longer than that of less potent ones. Document (41), which represented the contemporary view, clearly showed that a leading scientist was impressed and surprised by the results of the phase II study carried out by the appellant-proprietors. In summary, there was no teaching in the prior art that would lead the skilled person to the expectation that once-yearly administration would provide an effective therapeutic treatment, evidenced by biomarkers together with BMD. Consequently, the subject-matter of the main request and of auxiliary request 1 involved an inventive step.
X. The arguments of appellant-opponents 1, 3 and 5 which are relevant to the present decision may be summarised as follows.
Appellant-opponent 1 requested acceleration of the appeal proceedings on the grounds that it was seeking marketing authorisation for a zolendronic acid product and that an affiliate had been sued for infringement in France. Although the infringement proceedings were mainly based on European patent No. 1 296 689, European patent No. 1 591 122 which was the subject of the present appeal proceedings had been invoked too. Moreover, the appellant-proprietors had requested acceleration of the opposition proceedings. In support of its request, appellant-opponent 1 filed documents (77) and (77a). Former appellant-opponent 4 also requested accelerated proceedings on the grounds that affiliates had been sued by the appellant-proprietors for infringement in France and that these affiliates had requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the present appeal proceedings. In support of its request, former appellant-opponent 4 filed documents (69a) and (69b).
Document (70) was filed as a reaction to the opposition division's view of the skilled person's expectation of success concerning prolonged treatment intervals. Document (72) was self-explanatory and had been discussed by the appellant-proprietors at several points in their reply to appellant-opponent 4's appeal. Document (94) was filed in response to the appellant-proprietors latest submissions.
There were several ways to make the contents of documents available to the public. In the present case, document (55) was given to a number of people, albeit in the context of their participation in a clinical trial, but without any explicit agreement to secrecy. The situation in respect of document (55) was therefore not a typical doctor-patient relationship. There was also no implied confidentiality, since patients taking part in the study were actively encouraged to discuss the contents of document (55) with anyone, including their families and family doctors. There could not be a breach of good faith or mutual trust if a patient did something he had been explicitly encouraged to do (see document (57)). The confidentiality clause in document (55) was expressly limited to the sponsor having to maintain confidentiality for the collected information. There was no mention of a duty of confidentiality on the part of the patient. Also, no special situation existed for non-participating patients, to whom document (55) was also addressed, as shown in the first sentence of the document, and they also might have passed on the information contained in document (55). It was not of importance whether any of the participating patients or potentially participating patients actually disclosed the content of document (55) to anyone else; the only relevant fact was that they could have done so without violating any obligation of secrecy, and as a result they were to be considered members of the public. Furthermore, it was irrelevant whether an oral disclosure or a written disclosure had taken place. The appellant-opponents referred to page 5/6, last two paragraphs, of document (55), which clarified that copies of document (55) had been handed out. As to the cited case law, the situation in T 1081/01 was different. It was important to consider each case on its own facts.
Document (6) individualised zoledronic acid as one of its two preferred compounds (page 5, paragraph 5). Page 6, paragraph 5, described intravenous administration as being especially preferred. The dosage regimen was disclosed on page 7, paragraph 3, where intermittent cyclical therapy once a year was described. Also, the in vivo trial in the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 taught intravenous administration once a year. Osteoporosis was clearly indicated, firstly by being discussed in relation to the mechanism underlying the treatment (page 1, last paragraph) and secondly by the indication that the doses for prosthesis loosening and prosthesis migration treatment were the same as for the treatment of osteoporosis (page 7, paragraph 4). The overall disclosure of document (6) was thus that the preferred compound, zoledronic acid, given in the preferred mode of administration, intravenous, in a dosing regimen selected to be once-yearly could be used for the treatment of prosthesis loosening and in the same way for the treatment of osteoporosis.
Document (55) already disclosed all the features of the claims of the main request and of auxiliary request 1. It related to a clinical study for the treatment of osteoporosis, setting out the treatment regimen as intravenous administration of zoledronate given once yearly. Based on the general knowledge, the skilled person knew that osteoporosis would be treated to some extent in each of the study arms. Decisions T 2506/12, T 1859/08 and T 158/96 related to different circumstances. Document (89), page 342, right column, paragraph 2, stated that a clinical study was preceded by pre-clinical testing both in vitro and in animals. Many documents set out the treatment of osteoporosis with bisphosphonates and especially with zoledronic acid. Reference was made to documents (11), (19), (20), (30) and (31). Thus, although there was no evidence of the effect as such in document (55), the skilled person would have considered the effect to be present on the basis of the teaching of the prior art.
Starting from document (55) the distinguishing feature was the provision of the results of the clinical study. The technical problem to be solved was finding ways for the skilled person to obtain the results of the study. Alternatively, the problem could be seen as providing an effective treatment of osteoporosis. The solution was obvious. To obtain the results the skilled person would carry out the study. The study had already been designed, and there was no scientific input needed by the skilled person. The commercial burden of carrying out a clinical study did not influence the assessment of inventive step. Each treatment arm of the clinical study was technically credible. It was credible that in each arm some treatment of osteoporosis would be provided. The very inclusion of a study arm in a study led to a reasonable expectation (not certainty) of success, because clinical studies were only carried out on technically sound premises due to their being costly and time-consuming, involving patients and the associated ethical considerations. Evidence for the success of the long-term intermittent treatment of osteoporosis with zoledronic acid was robust and could be found in documents (6), (8)-(11), (27), (31), (33), (40) and (70). The appellant-opponents stressed that certainty that the effect would be achieved was not necessary, and invoked decision T 2506/12.
XI. The parties' final requests were confirmed as being as follows:
The appellant-proprietors requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be maintained on the basis of the claims of the main request filed on 24 October 2016, or, alternatively, that the appeals by the opponents 1, 3 and 5 be dismissed, i.e. the patent be maintained on the basis of auxiliary request 1 filed on 24 October 2016.
Appellant-opponents 1, 3 and 5 requested that the decision under appeal be set aside and that the patent be revoked in its entirety.
XII. At the end of the oral proceedings, the board's decision was announced.
Reasons for the Decision
1. The appeals are admissible.
By respectively withdrawing their opposition and opposition/appeal, opponent 2 and appellant-opponent 4 ceased to be parties to the appeal proceedings as regards substantive issues. Other issues for which they would have remained a party to the proceedings have not arisen in the present case. In view of the further appeals that have been filed and remain pending, the present appeal proceedings are not affected by these withdrawals.
2. Accelerated processing
2.1 According to the Notice from the Vice-President Directorate-General 3 dated 17 March 2008 concerning accelerated processing before the boards of appeal (OJ EPO 2008, 220), parties with a legitimate interest may ask the boards of appeal to deal with their appeals rapidly. The notice mentions situations which could justify such acceleration. However, acceleration is not limited to those exemplified situations and is a matter to be decided in the discretion of the board on the particular facts of the case before it (see e.g. decision T 895/13 and T 1125/13 of 28 March 2014, Reasons 10). While trivial reasons would clearly not justify acceleration, it follows from the scenarios exemplified in the notice that the term "legitimate interest" is not to be construed as requiring compelling reasons. Rather, objective reasons have to be put forth that warrant giving the appeal priority. Of course, the reasons invoked must be weighed against any disadvantage which might possibly ensue from granting accelerated proceedings.
2.2 In support of their requests for accelerated processing, appellant-opponent 1 and former appellant-opponent 4 argued that infringement proceedings had been brought against their affiliates in France. The board notes that these proceedings are based on an action by one of the present appellant-proprietors and its affiliates in France alleging infringement of European patent No. 1 296 689, which is not the subject of the present appeal proceedings. However, as is apparent from document (77a), the patent in suit - i.e. European patent No. 1 591 122 - has been invoked in the infringement proceedings in France (see document (77a), point 2.1). Moreover, it follows from document (69b) that a stay of the proceedings to await the decision in the present appeal proceedings was requested in March 2016. The board is thus satisfied that the present appeal proceedings have a bearing on the infringement proceedings in France. The board does not deem it appropriate for the purpose of deciding on accelerated processing to embark on a more thorough enquiry into the practical or economic impact of the present appeal proceedings on the infringement proceedings in France. Indeed, such an analysis would entail a prospective investigation into the arguments, in the infringement proceedings, relying on the patent in suit. Such considerations would clearly exceed the scope of analysis required for deciding on a procedural request for accelerated processing.
2.3 It has not been contested that appellant-opponent 1 and former appellant-opponent 4 are not party to the infringement proceedings in France. However, it is likewise uncontested that the infringement proceedings have been brought against companies belonging to the same groups of companies as appellant-opponent 1 and former appellant-opponent 4, respectively. The board judges that this is sufficient to establish a legitimate interest within the meaning of the notice. Indeed, the notice does not establish a requirement for the parties to appeal proceedings to be party to national infringement proceedings in order to request accelerated processing. In the absence of any further argument, the board also fails to understand why a possible right of the affiliates to intervene pursuant to Article 105 EPC based on the national infringement proceedings should have a bearing on the assessment of whether appellant-opponent 1 and former appellant-opponent 4 have a legitimate interest in acceleration.
2.4 For the above reasons, the board, in the exercise of its discretion, allowed acceleration.
3. Admission of documents (70)-(76), (92) and (94)
3.1 Document (70)
Document (70), relied upon by appellant-opponents 1 and 5 immediately after appellant-opponent 4 withdrew its opposition and appeal, had been filed together with the statement setting out the grounds of appeal by the then appellant-opponent 4. Its contents were discussed within the context of argumentation relating to the duration of action of a year or more for bisphosphonates. The duration of action was a key element of the impugned decision. Consequently, the filing of document (70) was to be seen as a legitimate attempt to strengthen appellant-opponent 4's argumentative position on this point.
In view of the above considerations, the board decided to take document (70) into account, in accordance with Article 12(1) and (4) RPBA.
Document (72) was filed by the then appellant-opponent 4 with the letter dated 8 June 2016, i.e. after the statement of grounds of appeal, but within four months of notification of the impugned decision. Hence, the criteria of Article 12 RPBA applied when this document was first submitted by the then appellant-opponent 4, who has not explained the reasons for the filing of document (72). Document (72) is however to some extent self-explanatory. On page 1, paragraph 3, right after the two paragraphs setting out the legitimation of Prof. Ringe to give his opinion, the intention and task of Prof. Ringe are clearly explained: "I have been asked by counsel for Teva to review the technical parts of the decision of the opposition division dated January 29, 2016." The document proceeds to set out Prof. Ringe's opinion on the connection between potency and duration of action of bisphosphonates and the relevance of biomarkers and BMD (bone mineral density) in assessing the treatment of osteoporosis. These two issues are discussed at length in the impugned decision. The board concludes that the intention behind the filing of document (72) can be derived from the document itself and that its contents can be seen as relating directly to the impugned decision.
Consequently, document (72) was admitted into the proceedings (Article 12(1) and (4) RPBA).
Document (94) was filed on 14 August 2017 in a common letter on behalf of opponent 2 and the then appellant-opponent 4, i.e. about one month before the oral proceedings before the board. It is an expert declaration dealing with substantial technical issues. The last letter by the appellant-proprietors containing arguments on substantial technical points was filed on 24 October 2016. Document (94) was thus filed more than nine months after that letter and cannot be seen as a direct response to it. Nor can it be seen as a response to the board's communication under Article 15(1) RPBA, since that communication raised no substantial technical issues. Admission of the expert declaration, which was submitted at quite a late stage in the appeal proceedings by opponent 2 and then appellant-opponent 4, would have added further complexity to the case. Moreover, the board was unable to identify a change to the appellant-proprietors' case which might have justified admission of document (94) at the moment when it was presented by appellant-opponents 1 and 5 as their own.
Hence, the board decided not to admit document (94) into the proceedings (Article 13(1) RPBA).
3.4 Documents (71), (73)-(76) and (92) have not been further referred to by any of the parties. Consequently, their admission need not be discussed.
4. Public availability of document (55)
It was disputed amongst the parties whether document (55) formed part of the state of the art pursuant to Article 54(2) EPC.
Document (55) is entitled "Information for the patient concerning the study 42446 02 041". It consists of six pages numbered 1/6 to 6/6. In the introductory lines the following is stated: "Dear Madam, We would like to ask you to read the following information so that you understand the study you are asked to participate in and so that you may decide whether or not to participate... You were diagnosed with a reduced density of the bone. The medical term for this is Osteoporosis." Pages 1/6 to 3/6 give information about the objective of the study, explain the set-up of the study including details of the treatment to be given, provide information on possible benefits, risks and discomforts, and discuss contra-indications. Page 4/6 relates to other, alternative treatments, insurance conditions and confidentiality arrangements concerning patients' medical data. In the last paragraph of page 4/6 actual participation in the study is addressed. Page 5/6 relates to the information provided to the patient's general physician. The last paragraph on page 5/6 reads: "Thereafter, you must decide whether or not you would like to participate in the study. If you decide to participate, you shall be asked to sign the next page. You shall receive a photocopy of this or a second, signed copy." Finally, page 6/6 can be summarised as representing the patient consent form, comprising statements of the patient and the physician and their signatures.
From the information that is directly obtainable from document (55) it can thus be derived that it was addressed to a number of patients suffering from osteoporosis who were asked to participate in study 42446 02 041.
Document (57) is an affidavit signed by Prof. Verbruggen. On page 2, in points 2 and 3, Prof. Verbruggen indicates that he was a clinical investigator for Novartis study 42446 02 041 and that he supervised about five patients from start to finish on the basis of a fully prepared protocol provided by the Novartis study. In point 4 he confirms that a copy of the document labelled "LV-1" annexed to his affidavit (see part of document (57) corresponding to document (55)), had been handed out to his patients. He also provided one signed version of page 6/6, with the name of the patient redacted and her signature partly removed (part of document (57), labelled "LV-2"; see point 5).
Thus, document (55) was received by patients, i.e. women suffering from osteoporosis, in the context of their participation in the study. This was not contested by the appellant-proprietors.
The essential question to be answered is therefore whether the recipients of document (55) are to be considered members of the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC.
It has not been argued by the appellant-proprietors that there was an explicit confidentiality agreement between the study sponsor and these patients or an obligation to maintain confidentiality (under national law). It remains to be seen whether there existed a special situation or some special relationship between the sponsor of the study and the patients having the consequence that the patients, as recipients of the information provided in document (55), cannot be considered members of the public due to an implied obligation to maintain confidentiality.
Of particular importance in this context is Prof. Verbruggen's affidavit (document (57)). In point 6, he stated that he had explained the contents of LV-1 to his patients and told them that, before signing the form, they should openly discuss the treatment referred to in the document with anyone, including their family and family doctor. Then he stated: "Indeed, I encouraged my patients to do so. That is without any obligation of confidentiality."
The facts given in Prof. Verbruggen's affidavit were not disputed by the appellant-proprietors, and the board sees no reason to question them. Thus, from the information that can be gained from the affidavit it is clear that his patients participating in the study were actively encouraged to discuss the contents of document (55) with "anyone".
The term "anyone" includes people who cannot be considered to be in a special relationship with the patient, let alone with the study sponsor, such as friends and other patients suffering from the same or similar conditions, as submitted by the appellant-opponents. There is thus no pointer to a special situation that would lead to the conclusion that the patients were under an implied obligation to keep the information contained in document (55) secret. Quite to the contrary, the recipients of the information were given the impression by its donor, i.e. the study sponsor via Prof. Verbruggen, that they were free to disseminate it further without restriction. Nor was this in conflict with the information that they could derive from document (55), since the section relating to confidentiality on page 4 addressed a different issue, namely the protection of the patients' data, and there is nothing else in document (55) to suggest that particular information contained therein should be kept secret.
The decisions cited in this context by the appellant-proprietors do not further support their case. The board agrees with the principle that information cannot be regarded as made available to the public for the purpose of Article 54(2) EPC and that the recipient of that information cannot be regarded as a member of the public if at the time of receipt of the information he is in some special relationship to the donor of the information (cf. T 1081/01, Reasons 7, and T 1057/09, Reasons 5.13). However, each case has to be assessed on its own facts, and in the circumstances of the present case the board does not acknowledge the existence of such a special relationship.
It is established case law that if a single member of the public who is not under an obligation to maintain secrecy has the possibility to access particular information, this information is considered as being available to the public within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC. In view of the fact that document (55) (or its respective country/language version, see "LV1" of document (57)) was handed out to people who were encouraged to discuss its contents with anyone, the board comes to the conclusion that the contents of document (55) have been made available to persons neither being bound by any confidentiality agreement nor being in a special relationship to the study sponsor who are thus to be classified as members of the public.
5. Novelty
5.1 Document (6)
Document (6) relates to the use of certain methanebisphosphonic acid derivatives for the prevention and treatment of prosthesis loosening and prosthesis migration (claim 1). In the introductory part of document (6) bisphosphonates, as a class of compounds, are said to clinically inhibit excessive bone resorption in a variety of diseases, and osteoporosis is listed (page 1, last paragraph). The paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3 describes an in vivo test on sheep with unilateral hip replacement by a titanium prosthesis, but does not disclose which specific bisphosphonate is administered. On page 5, paragraphs 4 and 5, two bisphosphonates are described as especially preferred, zoledronic acid being one of them. Several administration schemes are disclosed, single doses as well as multiple doses. Multiple doses may be given either in continuous regimens or as intermittent cyclical therapy. The intermittent therapy may be effected using several intervals, e.g. once weekly, once every month, once every three months, once every six months or once a year (page 7, paragraph 3). The following paragraph, i.e. paragraph 4 on page 7, relates to doses and specifies that the doses to be administered for the therapeutic indication intended to be treated in document (6) are of the same order of magnitude as for the treatment of, inter alia, osteoporosis. In summary, the disclosure of document (6) requires several selections in order to arrive at a regimen for treatment of prosthesis loosening and prosthesis migration that would, except for the medical indication, correspond to the regimen claimed in claim 1 or 2 of the main request. There is however no disclosure in document (6) of how osteoporosis is to be treated. The board agrees with the appellant-proprietors that the references to osteoporosis are background information relating to the use of bisphosphonates in general (page 1) and dosing (page 7, paragraph 4) only. Therefore, document (6) fails to disclose the subject-matter of the claims of the main request.
In document (55), after an introduction identifying the disease as osteoporosis and the active agent as "Zoledronate", the objective of the study is set out: "The objective of this study is to check if Zoledronate is an effective product in the prevention of bone loss in patients with post-menopausal Osteoporosis. Five different doses of Zoledronate shall be compared and it shall be determined what dose delivers the best result" (page 1/6, "Objective of the study"). The study is performed double-blindly, including a placebo arm in addition to the five study arms. From page 2/6 it can be derived that the five study arms include three arms in which different doses of zoledronate are administered at intervals of three months, one arm in which 2 mg zoledronate is administered at an interval of six months and one arm in which 4 mg zoledronate is administered at an interval of one year. The medication is injected intravenously.
The appellant-proprietors argued that the skilled person would not have expected any effective therapeutic treatment with the last study arm, i.e. the arm concerning once-yearly administration. That arm could have been included in the study for determining other effects, such as the point in time when the biomarkers start to drop. It is thus necessary for the board to carefully study document (55) to see if a conclusion can be drawn on the study sponsor's aim in including the five study arms discussed above.
In document (55) the five study arms are presented in exactly the same manner, being listed under five bullet points (page 2/6). This section of document (55) is followed, without a bullet point and thus clearly separated from said presentation, by a statement concerning the administration of the placebo. The five study arms are designed in a way that allows for data on efficacy to be obtained for different doses and for different dosing intervals. There are three study arms with different doses and three-monthly intervals, varying the dose while keeping the interval constant. The two further arms are also logically placed within the set-up of the study. Following the study arm relating to 1 mg zoledronate every three months, there is a study arm for 2 mg zoledronate every six months and a study arm for 4 mg zoledronate once a year. These arms keep the total dose administered per year constant and vary the administration frequency. From the information and the way the information is presented in document (55) the board cannot conclude that the study sponsor included any of the five arms for reasons other than studying the effectiveness of the treatment. Also, there is no indication that one study arm was considered from the outset to be unlikely to lead to a successful therapeutic treatment. The possible and probably also actual wish of the study sponsor to observe the occurrence of certain biomarkers over time is not contradictory to this conclusion. Similar considerations apply to the post-study treatment scheme: The fact that a post-study treatment scheme comprising administration of zoledronate every three months is offered does not provide an indication that the study sponsor considered that the study arms for twice-yearly and yearly administration would fail. Each of the five study arms is equally presented and consequently seriously contemplated by the study sponsors of document (55).
In summary, it can be concluded that document (55) relates to the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in human females, using, inter alia, 4 mg zoledronate, and administering said dose by single intravenous injection once-yearly (at the beginning of the study running for one year). There is however no disclosure of any effect, i.e. the effective treatment of osteoporosis, in document (55) itself.
In the present case the next step involves analysing whether the effect discussed above would arise with certainty from the treatment as described in document (55), i.e. whether the disclosure of document (55) has to be read as an implicit disclosure of the effective treatment of osteoporosis.
To provide support for the notion of an implicit disclosure the appellant-opponents have referred to documents (89), (11), (19), (20), (30) and (31).
Document (89) explains in the context of pharmaceutical aspects of clinical studies that administration of a new drug to humans is preceded by extensive pre-clinical testing both in vitro and in animals (page 342, right column, paragraph 2).
Document (11) is a textbook dealing with bisphosphonates in bone disease. The actions of the bisphosphonates as a class of compounds, especially their physico-chemical and biological effects, are described on pages 34 to 51 in the context of the pre-clinical assessment of bisphosphonates. In normal animals zoledronate has been shown to have a positive effect on mechanical characteristics in various experimental osteoporosis models (page 39, first paragraph). Zoledronate is described as being among the most potent bisphosphonates (page 40 in figure 2.3-9).
Document (19) relates to the pre-clinical pharmacology of zoledronate. Zoledronate is identified as a highly potent inhibitor of bone resorption in vitro (page 16, left column, last paragraph). Results obtained from an animal model provide a basis for speculation ("may") as to the effectiveness of zoledronate in the treatment of human post-menopausal osteoporosis (page 17, left column, paragraph 2).
Document (20) discusses the effects of zoledronate on bone loss in rat models of osteopenia. A treatment time of up to 30 days was chosen ("2.3 Experimental protocol"). In the discussion part it is stated, with reference to a prior publication, that the "particular pharmacokinetic behaviour justifies intermittent administration with prolonged treatment-free intervals" (page 85, right column, paragraph 1).
Document (30) discloses substituted bisphosphonates as active agents in the treatment of, inter alia, diseases linked to disorders in calcium metabolism, e.g. osteoporosis (claim 1, page 3, lines 21-31). Zoledronic acid is listed, among other bisphosphonates, in claim 8.
Document (31), starting on page 30, gives an update on bisphosphonates in the context of osteoporosis. On page 31 (paragraph bridging the left column and the middle column), it is suggested that high doses of a potent bisphosphonate should be given once or twice a year.
The documents cited by the appellant-opponents in this context provide no information on the use of zoledronate in humans for the treatment of osteoporosis. There is no explicit or implicit indication in any of these documents that effects of animal models or of other bisphosphonates can be directly transferred to the treatment as disclosed in document (55), i.e. to the particular dose of 4 mg, to the yearly dosing interval and to human females having post-menopausal osteoporosis. There remains a certain residual doubt that the effect, i.e. the treatment of post-menopausal osteoporosis in human females getting an intravenous dosage of 4 mg zoledronic acid once a year, is/will be achieved. Consequently, document (55) does not directly and unambiguously disclose the effective treatment of osteoporosis as defined in the independent claims of the main request.
5.3 The subject-matter of the claims of the main request is thus novel.
In the light of this conclusion it is not necessary to discuss T 2506/12, T 1859/08 and T 158/96 in this context.
6. Inventive step
6.1 The subject of the patent in suit is the therapeutic treatment of conditions of abnormally increased bone turnover, such as osteoporosis, with bisphosphonates (paragraph [0001]). The patent in suit aims at providing a convenient medicament for the treatment of osteoporosis. For this purpose the administration of a very potent N-bisphosphonate, i.e. zoledronic acid, at a very long dosing interval ([0005] and [0006]) is taught.
6.2 A possible starting point for the assessment of inventive step is document (55). The content of document (55) is discussed in detail in point 5.2 above. The five study arms are presented in the same manner. Each can be seen as a valid starting point. In the present case, the board considers the last study arm pertaining to once-yearly administration as the most promising starting point for the assessment of inventive step.
6.3 As can be seen from the discussion under point 5.2 above, the difference between the disclosure of document (55) and the subject-matter of claims 1 and 2 of the main request lies in the failure of document (55) to directly and unambiguously disclose the effective treatment of osteoporosis.
Consequently, the technical problem to be solved in view of the once-yearly arm as starting point in document (55) is the provision of an effective treatment of osteoporosis.
6.4 The board considers that the data presented in example 5 of the patent in suit provides evidence that the problem has been solved, at least for post-menopausal osteoporosis. This has not been contested by the appellant-opponents.
6.5 Obviousness
As already stated under point 5.2 with regard to the content of document (55) in the context of novelty, a certain doubt remains as to whether the yearly treatment arm leads to an effective treatment of osteoporosis. The question to be answered is thus whether this doubt would diminish the skilled person's expectation of success for this yearly treatment arm.
The board considers that the mere fact that an active agent selected from the group of bisphosphonates is being tested in a clinical study for the treatment of osteoporosis (as disclosed in document (55)) leads to an expectation of success, due to the fact that clinical studies are based on data obtained by pre-clinical testing both in vitro and in animals and require authority approval which takes ethical considerations into account. This means in the present case that the skilled person would expect all study arms to treat osteoporosis effectively, unless he was dissuaded from this by the prior art
Several documents have been invoked by the parties in this context. It is necessary to establish whether any of the documents cited by the parties would lead the skilled person to expect the once-yearly study arm to fail.
The contents of documents (6), (11), (19), (20), (30) and (31) have been discussed under point 5. Document (6) does not deal with the treatment of osteoporosis. The skilled person would understand from the disclosure of document (11) that the various bisphosphonates cannot be directly compared and that the results obtained with one bisphosphonate cannot be directly extrapolated to another bisphosphonate. However, the skilled person would also learn from document (11) that zoledronate is expected to act generally as a member of the group of bisphosphonates, i.e. like all other bisphosphonates zoledronate is expected to be effective in the treatment of osteoporosis. This is in line with general expectations raised by the pre-clinical studies and the studies on animal models in documents (19) and (20). Documents (30) and (31) are very general in their disclosure. However, they do not contain any indication that zoledronate would not be useful for once-yearly administration in the treatment of osteoporosis.
A brief analysis of some of the further documents needs to be carried out:
Document (8) relates to a single patient having severe osteoporosis who was successfully treated with intravenous doses of pamidronate given at six-monthly intervals. It is doubtful whether any general considerations can be derived from a study comprising a single patient.
Document (9) discusses the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis by intravenous administration of pamidronate. Two dosage regimens are tested, once every three months and a single dose at the beginning of the observation period of one year. Both dosage regimens lead to primary prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis as determined by BMD. No data on biomarkers is presented. However, indications are provided that a decrease of biomarkers was found for all groups during the first six months.
Document (10) relates to intravenous administration of alendronate and observes that the response in BMD and the majority of the tested biomarkers persisted six months after treatment (abstract, table 1).
In document (26) clodronate was tested for twice-yearly administration, and speculations are made that administration every four months may be optimal.
Document (27) is a position paper of the NSW Therapeutic Assessment Group Inc. It states, inter alia, that there is evidence to support the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis by means of four agents, namely etidronate, alendronate, pamidronate and risedronate (page 20).
Document (33) speculates that the optimum interval for etidronate and clodronate may be four times per year, based on data showing a trend toward decreasing concentrations of markers of bone turnover for up to three months.
Document (37) is a transcript of the deposition of Dr Russell before the High Court of Justice. Dr Russell states that only biomarkers give a clear picture of effective treatment, whereas BMD does not (page 443).
Document (38) reports that studies are ongoing concerning the bisphosphonate zolendronate in post-menopausal osteoporosis and corticosteroid-induced osteoporosis (second page, last entry). There are no further details.
Document (40) reports on an open study in which alendronate was administered intravenously. Various biomarkers and BMD are assessed. The conclusion drawn in the abstract is that a sustained effect on bone turnover persists for at least one year. The appellant-proprietors questioned the data and the study set-up on which the conclusion of document (40) is based.
In document (41) Mr Russell praises the paper publishing the results of a phase II clinical study using zoledronate in the effective treatment of osteoporosis, which is the same study as described in document (55). This document does not give any indication of how Mr Russell would have judged the five study arms, especially the yearly study arm, if he had not received the results at the same time as gaining knowledge of the study set-up. The document is therefore not relevant in this context.
Document (44) is the SmPC of Aclasta and is post-published.
Document (48) relates to risedronate and includes one study arm having a cyclic treatment involving approximately two weeks of continuous treatment followed by two weeks without treatment. When the treatment was discontinued, bone turnover increased within six months toward baseline levels, and bone mass decreased significantly within one year but remained higher than in the placebo group.
Documents (59) and (72) are expert declarations filed by former appellant-opponent 4. They relate, inter alia, to the link between potency and duration of action of specific bisphosphonates. However, the data presented, especially in document (59) under point 7 and in document (72) in the table of point 8, is not straightforward. The least potent bisphosphonate, clodronate, is presented as being effective for the longest period of time. These declarations thus cannot directly show how a skilled person presented with document (55) would have expected the once-yearly study arm to perform.
Document (70) relates to a daily dosing regimen of pamidronate and is thus not relevant.
It is not necessary to consider document (46), since it is post-published by several years. Therefore the statements it contains could not have influenced the skilled person.
To summarise, several documents assess the efficacy of therapeutic treatment with bisphosphonates, in one form or another, by assessing either biomarkers or BMD, after several months of dosing. There is no indication whatsoever in the prior art suggesting that zoledronic acid would behave differently in principle than the tested bisphosphonates. While there is no teaching in the prior art that clearly indicates that zoledronic acid is effective in the treatment of osteoporosis when given once yearly, there is on the other hand no indication either that such treatment would fail. It might even be said that in general for bisphosphonates, which also include zoledronic acid, there was speculation about persistent effects lasting at least 12 months.
The set-up of the clinical study of document (55) thus creates an expectation of success for the treatment of osteoporosis with zoledronic acid administered once yearly. That expectation is not diminished by any disclosure of the prior art. A person skilled in the art would therefore follow a dosage regimen as disclosed in document (55) for the once-yearly study arm when aiming at an effective treatment of osteoporosis and would thus arrive at the subject-matter of the independent claims of the main request.
Consequently, the subject-matter of the independent claims of the main request does not involve an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).
6.6 Further arguments
The board agrees with the appellant-proprietors that the mere fact that a clinical study is performed does not as a rule mean that the particular therapeutic effect is always achieved, in line with decision T 158/96. That decision, however, addresses novelty rather than inventive step. For the assessment of inventive step, certainty as to the outcome of a clinical study is not necessary.
The appellant-proprietors invoked decision T 293/07 in support of their argument that tests on humans are not routine approaches. The present situation, however, cannot be compared with the situation arising in case T 293/07, since document (55) already relates to human testing, whereas in T 293/07 the closest prior art relied on animal tests where ischemic incidents were produced in mice by suppressing blood flow to the brain. Also, the mode of administration varied between the claimed subject-matter (peripherally) and the closest prior art (direct administration intraventricularly). In the present case no modifications to the teaching of the closest prior art necessitating further routine tests leading to a "try-and-see" approach are required. Unlike the situation underlying decision T 293/07, the only remaining question relates to the residual doubt as to the outcome of the clinical study of document (55).
The present situation furthermore differs from the one underlying decision T 715/03, also cited by the appellant-proprietors, in that, unlike the situation in T 715/03, animal models for osteoporosis exist and in that zoledronic acid has been successfully tested in those animal models (see document (20)). Furthermore, again unlike the situation in T 715/03, zoledronic acid belongs to the chemical class of substituted bisphosphonates, which are established drugs in the treatment of osteoporosis (see documents discussed above), whereas in T 715/03 the active agent had a chemical structure and belonged to an activity class that was remote from the active agents known to treat the disease under consideration.
The appellant-proprietors argued that, unlike the situation in case T 2506/12, in the present case there was only pre-clinical evidence that the active agent, zoledronic acid, could be effective in the treatment of osteoporosis.
The board refers to point 5.2 above, in which the fact that zoledronic acid has not yet been shown to be effective in humans is exhaustively discussed. The board holds that there remained a residual doubt that the desired treatment would be obtained, which however did not diminish the prospects of success to such an extent that the reasonable expectation turned into a mere "hope to succeed". Clinical trials in humans are planned scientific investigations. They require authority approval, which is only given after a risk/benefit evaluation. For ethical (but also economic) reasons it has to be ensured that research risks are minimised and are reasonable in relation to any potential benefits. Ethical and economical considerations require that the "benefit" will arise with reasonable certainty and will not only "be hoped for". This has to be taken into consideration as part of the technical circumstances when assessing the level of confidence of the skilled person in making rational predictions about achieving the envisaged treatment. Consequently, even though the circumstances are different from those of case T 2506/12, that does not automatically mean that an inventive step is to be acknowledged.
The appellant-proprietors pointed to the importance of assessing biomarkers. They explained that BMD and fracture incidences would only become of serious interest once an effective treatment had been established. The board cannot accept this argument. The three parameters under consideration, i.e. biomarkers, BMD and fracture incidences, show the effect at different levels, i.e. at the biochemical level of bone formation and resorption, at the physiological level representing the results of the biochemical processes, and finally at the clinical level corresponding to the practical aim of the treatment. Effective therapeutic treatment can be and is assessed at all three levels, as argued by the opponents and evidenced inter alia by documents (9), (10), (20), (27), (31) and (46). The board has thus taken all three parameters into account.
7. Auxiliary request 1
Claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 is identical to claim 1 of the main request. The same conclusions as for claim 1 of the main request apply. The subject-matter of claim 1 of auxiliary request 1 is novel but does not involve an inventive step.
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The decision under appeal is set aside.
2. The patent is revoked.
Skip navigation [Alt] + 1
Accessibility information [Alt] + 9
Write to our customer services
The EPO in social media
Facebook: News, photos, videos from the EPO
Facebook: Job vacancies, interviews, testimonials
Twitter: News and announcements from the EPO
Twitter: Job vacancies, interviews, testimonials
LinkedIn: Connect with the EPO
LinkedIn: Connect with our recruitment team
YouTube: Videos about us and about inventors, clips from key events
Instagram: Stories of inventors, inventions, events and activities at the EPO
Patent information events
Consult our calendar
How to apply for a patent
A step-by-step guide to the grant procedure
Official Journal email alerts
Get the latest issues delivered direct to your inbox
Search for events and training by topic, date, location or target audience
Quality Report 2018
Transparency on quality of products and services


Prosecutors in New York are planning to file civil fraud charges against accounting firm Ernst & Young LLC over its alleged role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008, according to a published report.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the lawsuit stems from Lehman's use of an accounting technique known as "Repo 105" in which the company was able to temporarily remove $50 billion of assets from its balance sheet in 2008.
The suit, led by Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo, could come as early as this week and might impose fines and other penalties, the paper said.
This would be the first time a major accounting firm has come under fire for its hand in the financial crisis, analysts said.
A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young said the company did not comment on speculation and said its dealings with Lehman were transparent.
"Throughout our period as the auditor of Lehman, we firmly believe our work met all applicable professional standards, applying the rules that existed at the time," the statement said.
Lehman filed the largest U.S. bankruptcy in history in September 2008. At the time, a court examiner said that Lehman's bankruptcy estate could have "colorable claims," or grounds to sue, Ernst & Young for negligence and professional malpractice.


text:
Aptitude for Engineering and Computer Science Assessment
Test dates and locations
Test fee and refunds
Reasonable adjustments
Test centre protocol
AEA is offered by Griffith University as an admission pathway for domestic students wishing to apply for a place in the Bachelor of Engineering (Honours). For further information, please visit https://www.griffith.edu.au/griffith-sciences/school-engineering-built-environment/learning-teaching/aptitude-for-engineering-assessment
The 2023 AEA test will be held in September 2023. Exact dates will be advised in mid 2023. The exams will be held at the Griffith Nathan and Griffith Gold Coast campuses.
If you reside in a regional area, you can take the test online via Zoom in September 2023. Exact dates will also be advised in mid 2023 (via the Zoom platform.)
Registrations for the September 2023 AEA test will close at 5.00 pm AEST, date to be advised mid 2023.
Candidate login Test dates and location information
What is the Aptitude for Engineering and Computer Science Assessment?
The Aptitude for Engineering and Computer Science Assessment (AEA) is a two-and-a-half hour multiple choice test that assesses a candidate's aptitude to think scientifically, solve quantitative problems, critically analyse information and display interpersonal understanding.
AEA has been developed by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) to assist universities to select students into courses offered by the Engineering and Computer Science faculties.
Who should sit AEA?
AEA offers a pathway to the Engineering and Computer Science faculties at universities for students who:
have not completed the prerequisite subjects necessary for admission to Engineering and Computer Science courses
wish to have information about their aptitude for Engineering and Computer Science considered alongside their state school certificate results (Higher School Certificate, Queensland Senior Certificate, The South Australian Certificate of Education, Victorian Certificate of Education, Western Australian Certificate of Education)
seek entry to Engineering and Computer Science faculties as a mature age student
seek admission to Engineering and Computer Science faculties as an international student and wish to have information about their aptitude for Engineering and Computer Science considered alongside their documented results
seek admission to Engineering and Computer Science faculties as an international student and have not studied subjects traditionally required for admission to Engineering and Computer Science courses.
19 Prospect Hill Road (Private Bag 55)
Camberwell VIC 3124 Australia
Email: aea@acer.org
ACER on Twitter ACER on Facebook ACER on LinkedIn ACER on Vimeo Follow the RSS feed for Discover
© 2023 Australian Council for Educational Research — ACER, official partner of UNESCO
ABN: 19 004 398 145 Privacy policy Careers Social media directory Reconciliation at ACER Contact Online terms of use
ACER Shop
Assessment administrators


The expert pest control and treatment methods used by ABC Pest Control - Pest Control Glebe are super effective as we use the most modern technology available in the pest control industry.
ABC Pest Control - Pest Control Glebe offers the best pest control services in the industry, treating bee, cockroach, silverfish and ant infestations in homes and commercial premises including restaurants and offices throughout Glebe. ABC Pest Control - Pest Control Glebe can help you with pest control problems before they get out of control.
Our pest control technicians are unbeatable. We implement environmentally friendly methods which have strengthened our solid reputation as the most reliable pest control business in Glebe.
With over 20 years experience in the pest control industry, ABC Pest Control - Pest Control Glebe are the only company in Glebe you can be sure will have all the experience and expertise you require to permanently control your pest problems.
ABC Pest Control – Pest Control Services Glebe are highly skilled in all kinds of pest control services in Glebe. ABC Pest Control – Pest Control Services Glebe provide an impressive selection of pest control services in Glebe from pest inspections Glebe, pest control Glebe and commercial pest control Glebe.
If you need to get rid of those nasty pests straight away call the exceptional pest controllers from ABC Pest Control – Pest Controllers Glebe that can guarantee you a quick, proficient and affordable pest controllers service in Glebe today.
ABC Pest Control – Commercial Pest Control Glebe have been perfecting their commercial pest control service for over 10 years' and can promise you that they won't let you down with their second to none commercial pest control services.
So don't let pests ruin your business, hire your local commercial pest control specialist in Glebe; ABC Pest Control – Pest Control Services Glebe.
If you don't act fast and get a pest treatment in Glebe today those nasty pests can spread and infect your property and cause some serious damage. ABC Pest Control – Pest Treatments Glebe provide professional pest treatments in Glebe that will have those pests treated safely and affordably.
A home is your sanctuary and you don't want uninvited pests barging in and causing grief to you and your family. That's why you need some expert home pest control in Glebe by the home pest control specialists, ABC Pest Control – Pest Treatments Glebe.
Local Pest Control Glebe: ABC Pest Control are locally owned and operated so they can be at your premises in Glebe and provide you with fantastic local pest control services in absolutely no time whatsoever.
Fully Insured Pest Inspections Glebe: Every pest inspection performed by ABC Pest Control is fully insured so you can trust that by choosing the amazing pest inspection services of ABC Pest Control you'll be getting nothing short of the highest quality pest inspections available in Glebe today.
Over 10 Years' Experience: ABC Pest Control have been working in the pest control industry for over 10 years, which means ABC Pest Control can properly assist you with all your pest control needs in Glebe.


Angela Peters ventured to her local Wal Mart in Flint, Michigan for a manicure at the in-house salon, DaVi Nails.
Unfortunately, Peters was told she would not be allowed to get her nails done because she "shakes too much." Peters was born with cerebral palsy, and is confined to a wheelchair.
This did not sit well for cashier Ebony Harris, though. Forgoing her break, she bought a new bottle of nail polish, sat with Peters, and gave her a manicure of her own for free.
Fellow employee Tasia Smith witnessed the kind act, and wrote on Facebook, "...no matter the person, who they are, what color they are, disability, whatever, they're people too. She's a girly girl. She's just like you, me, Tasia, my daughter, anybody. She wants to look pretty, you know, and so why can't she?"


Bonjour, Merci d'avoir posté votre avis. Cordialement, Cédric Coste, Camping Deth-Potz.
General review : "Very good camping for a cycling or hiking trip!"
Hello, thank you for you reply. King regards, Cédric Coste, campsite Deth-Potz.
General review : "Relaxing family holiday"
We really like the big place, the beautifull surrounding, the area and the nice place Argeles-Gazost. We also like that there is enough place to play and that it is quiet and dark in the night. The owner, his family and his employés are very kind and helpfull. We really think that is nobel en good of the owner to have kidscamps for disadvantaged kids.
Personally I would like to have toiletpaper on the toilets and soap with the crane in the sanitary.
Hello, Thank you. Cédric Coste,Camping Deth-Potz.
The place was a little descending.


text:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<ScrollView xmlns:android="http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/android"
    android:layout_width="match_parent"
    android:layout_height="match_parent"
    android:orientation="vertical"
    android:focusable="true"
    android:focusableInTouchMode="true"  >

    <!-- Nest these Views in RelativeLayout and center them in screen -->

    <RelativeLayout
        android:id="@+id/Team_Input_Screen"
        android:layout_width="wrap_content"
        android:layout_height="wrap_content"
        android:layout_gravity="center_horizontal|center_vertical"
        android:padding="30dp"
        android:background="@drawable/picture_frame" >

        <ImageView
            android:id="@+id/IV_Team_Picture"
            android:layout_width="125dp"
            android:layout_height="125dp"
            android:layout_alignParentTop="true"
            android:onClick="onPhotoClick"
            android:background="@drawable/picture_frame_small"
            android:src="@drawable/ic_contact_picture"
            android:text="@string/team_name"
            android:scaleType="fitXY"
            android:layout_alignParentLeft="true"
            android:contentDescription="@string/team_photo_content_description"/>

      <EditText
            android:id="@+id/ET_Team_Rank"
            android:layout_width="wrap_content"
            android:layout_height="wrap_content"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/IV_Team_Picture"
            android:layout_marginLeft="200dp"
            android:layout_toRightOf="@id/IV_Team_Picture"
            android:maxLength="4"
            android:inputType="number"
            android:maxLines="1"
            android:hint="@string/rank"
            android:textSize="18sp" />

        <EditText
            android:id="@+id/ET_Team_Name"
            android:layout_width="200dp"
            android:layout_height="wrap_content"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Rank"
            android:layout_above="@id/ET_Team_Rank"
            android:hint="@string/team_name"
            android:textSize="20sp"
            android:inputType="text|textCapSentences"/>

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Drive"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/IV_Team_Picture"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/drive" />

        <Spinner
            android:id="@+id/SP_Drive"
            style="@style/team_scouting_spinner"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Drive"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name"
            android:entries="@array/drive_option" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Wheel"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Drive"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/wheel" />

        <Spinner
            android:id="@+id/SP_Wheel"
            style="@style/team_scouting_spinner"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Wheel"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name"
            android:entries="@array/wheel_option" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Position"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Wheel"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/prefer_position" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Left"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/SP_Wheel"
            android:text="@string/left" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Middle"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_marginLeft="12dp"
            android:layout_toRightOf="@id/CB_Left"
            android:text="@string/middle" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Right"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_marginLeft="12dp"
            android:layout_toRightOf="@id/CB_Middle"
            android:text="@string/right" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Position"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/shoot_from_where" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Fender"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/TBT_Team_Auto"
            android:text="@string/fender" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Key"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_marginLeft="12dp"
            android:layout_toRightOf="@id/CB_Fender"
            android:text="@string/key" />

        <CheckBox
            android:id="@+id/CB_Anywhere"
            style="@style/team_scouting_checkbox"
            android:layout_alignBottom="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_alignTop="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_marginLeft="12dp"
            android:layout_toRightOf="@id/CB_Key"
            android:text="@string/anywhere" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Team_Auto"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Shoot_From_Where"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/play_auto" />

        <ToggleButton
            android:id="@+id/TBT_Team_Auto"
            style="@style/team_scouting_togglebutton"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Team_Auto"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Team_Kinect"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Team_Auto"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/STR_Kinect" />

        <ToggleButton
            android:id="@+id/TBT_Team_Kinect"
            style="@style/team_scouting_togglebutton"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Team_Kinect"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Team_Barrier"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Team_Kinect"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/team_barrier" />

        <ToggleButton
            android:id="@+id/TBT_Team_Barrier"
            style="@style/team_scouting_togglebutton"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Team_Barrier"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Team_Bridge"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Team_Barrier"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/team_bridge" />

        <ToggleButton
            android:id="@+id/TBT_Team_Bridge"
            style="@style/team_scouting_togglebutton"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Team_Bridge"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name" />

        <TextView
            android:id="@+id/TV_Team_Strategy"
            style="@style/team_scouting_row"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Team_Bridge"
            android:layout_marginTop="26dp"
            android:text="@string/strategy" />

        <Spinner
            android:id="@+id/SP_Strategy"
            style="@style/team_scouting_spinner"
            android:layout_alignBaseline="@id/TV_Team_Strategy"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/ET_Team_Name"
            android:entries="@array/strategy_option" />

        <EditText
            android:id="@+id/ET_Team_Comment"
            android:layout_width="625dp"
            android:layout_height="wrap_content"
            android:layout_below="@id/TV_Team_Strategy"
            android:layout_alignLeft="@id/TV_Team_Strategy"
            android:scrollHorizontally="false"
            android:layout_marginTop="25dp"
            android:hint="@string/comment"
            android:inputType="text|textCapSentences" />
    </RelativeLayout>

</ScrollView>