Several petrochemical companies to pay $5.5 million for years of pollution in area waters Several petrochemical companies will pay $5.5 million to the federal government for costs incurred while investigating and addressing contamination of the Calcasieu Estuary Site. (Source: KPLC) By Johnathan Manning | April 26, 2021 at 5:03 PM CDT - Updated April 26 at 5:13 PM
LAKE CHARLES, La. (KPLC) - Several petrochemical companies will pay $5.5 million to the federal government for costs incurred while investigating and addressing contamination of the Calcasieu Estuary Site.
The pollution occurred over a number of years as the plants released chemicals into area waterways, according to the complaint filed in federal court.
IoT Telecom Services Market Next Big Thing | Major Giants AT&T, Vodafone, Verizon Communications
texasguardian.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from texasguardian.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
Product Guide 2021: Braces & Orthoses
ptproductsonline.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from ptproductsonline.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Colm F. Connolly in
University of Massachusetts et al. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 17-0868-CFC-SRF (D.Del. April 20, 2021), the Court granted Defendant L’Oréal’s motion for summary judgment of indefiniteness of the skin enhancement claim limitation of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,423,327 (“the ‘327 patent”) and 6,645,513 (“the ‘513 patent”) after finding that the skin enhancement limitation in the independent claims of the patents-in-suit, when viewed in light of the specifications and prosecution histories, fails to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. The Court also found that, since Plaintiff did not argue that the “dependent claims of [the patents-in-suit] provide clarity regarding the scope of the skin enhancement limitation that is lacking in the independent claims, those dependent claims are also invalid for indefiniteness.”