MVS Filewrapper® Blog: FDA Releases First "Purple Book" for Biosimilar Products

The Biosimilars Act (BSA) was passed into law on March 23, 2010 with the goal of encouraging the market entry of generic products, similar to the system that exists for generic drugs under the Hatch-Waxman Act.  The BSA sets forth an abbreviated approval pathway for biologics through a regulatory demonstration of biosimilarity (i.e. interchangeability).

 

More than 4 years after the BSA went into effect, the FDA has released its "Purple Book" listing biological products, including any biosimilar and interchangeable biological products licensed by FDA.  The Purple Book is intended to serve a similar function to the "Orange Book" that lists drug products with therapeutic equivalence evaluations that have been approved by the FDA.  The release of the Purple Book follows closely behind the filing of the first two applications for approval of biosimilar products.

 

For more information about the BSA, see the June 2014 issue of MVS Briefs, available here. 

More information on the "Purple Book"—including current lists of licensed biological products— is available from the FDA website here.

 

 

 

 

 

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Should Trade Secret Misappropriation be Federalized?

The legal community (along with bipartisan legislation) has been discussing the creation of a private cause of action under federal laws for trade secret misappropriation – or trade secret theft. In light increased cyber-espionage and the apparent ease in which trade secrets can be misappropriated in the marketplace, Congress has taken an apparent interest in "strengthening" trade secret protections.

 

Currently, trade secrets are a matter of state law. This means that each state has established requirements for trade secret misappropriation. In sum, these require a finding that a trade secret holder has a "secret" with value as a result of it not being generally known by others (i.e. competitors), that the trade secret holder has taken efforts to maintain secrecy, and that the party alleged to have access or appropriated the secret used some sort of improper means. Although the precise definitions for these standards may vary among the states, there are relatively small distinctions among the states.

 

Both the House and the Senate may consider bills introduced as early as this fall to consider federalizing this cause of action. The "Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014" ("DTSA") (S. 2267) and the "Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014" (H.R. 5233) have been introduced to create a private cause of action under the existing Economic Espionage Act of 1996.  The DTSA as drafted would authorize a trade secret owner to bring a civil cause of action in federal court for either (1) a violation of the Economic Espionage Act (which criminalized types of trade secret theft), or (2) a “misappropriation of a trade secret that is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The Judiciary Committee has held a hearing to discuss the benefits of the federal cause of action. A few of the purported benefits of establishing federal legislation would be to grant access to federal forums (based on the subject matter instead of matters of diversity and/or supplemental jurisdiction), along with granting access to federal remedies for seizures to prevent irreparable harm caused by trade secret misappropriation.

 

As expected, there are vocal critics of such federalization, including a group of legal scholars and professors (see opposition letter at http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/FINAL%20Professors%27%20Letter%20Opposing%20Trade%20Secret%20Legislation.pdf). As stakeholders continue to voice opinions (and concerns) over pending legislation, more information will be provided through Filewrapper.com.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: USPTO Cancels Washington, D.C. NFL Franchise's Trademark Registrations

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a decision yesterday cancelling six federal trademark registrations owned by the Washington, D.C. National Football League franchise.  The cancellation proceeding was brought by five Native American petitioners on the basis that the marks disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) panel of three Administrative Trademark Judges sided with the petitioners, cancelling all six of the challenged registrations. 

 

The registrations in question were all obtained between 1967 and 1990 on behalf of the Washington NFL franchise, and are all word marks.  The registrations were previously challenged in 1992 in a similar proceeding that also challenged the team logos without the word marks.  In the prior proceeding the TTAB held that the marks were disparaging to Native Americans when registered and ordered the registrations canceled.  The Washington NFL franchise appealed the decision in the prior proceeding to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who reversed the decision as barred by the doctrine of laches. 

 

The TTAB panel found that the five petitioners had standing to bring the cancellation proceeding, and were not barred from doing so by the doctrine of laches. The TTAB panel further found that the alleged honorable intent and manner of use of the term did not contribute to the determination of whether the marks were disparaging, but rather the sole issue was whether a substantial composite of the referenced group found the term to be disparaging in the context of the Washington NFL franchise during the time period when the registrations were obtained (1967-1990). 

 

The TTAB consulted evidence that reflected the sentiments of Native Americans, including a resolution passed by the National Congress of American Indians, various reports and testimony, newspaper articles, official records, and letters, and concluded that the substantial evidence may have disparaged a substantial composite of Native Americans at the times of the registrations.

 

Administrative Trademark Judge Bergsman dissented in the opinion on the basis that the petitioners had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the marks to be disparaging in connection with the Washington NFL franchise during the relevant time frame.

 

The full decision and additional information are available here.  

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: USPTO Glossary Pilot Program

The USPTO has instituted a new program, the Glossary Pilot Program, which began June 2, 2014. The program will allow applicants for computer-related inventions to petition to make special entry into the Glossary Pilot Program with the filing of an application. Applications accepted into this pilot program will receive expedited processing and be placed on an examiner’s special docket prior to the first office action, with special status up to the issuance of the first Office action.

This program is set to run for six (6) moths through December 31, 2014, but may be cut off once the USPTO accepts 200 grantable petitions.  The program is intended to encourage the use of a glossary that provides clear definitions for some terms used in the claims in order to help the reader understand the disclosed invention with a higher level of clarity.

In order to qualify for the Glossary Pilot Program, all of the conditions set forth in the Federal Register Notice, must be met. Specifically:

(1)   The application must be an original, non-reissue, non-provisional utility application that does not claim benefit of a prior filed non-provisional U.S. application, unless the application is a continuation-in-part application filed for the purposes of providing a glossary.

(2)   The application and petition must use Form PTO/SB/436 and must be filed after June 2, 2014 and before the pilot deadline expires.

(3)   The claimed invention must be classified in one of the Art Areas related to computer-related and business method inventions, including those involving Computer Architecture Software and Information Security (Technology Center 2100); Computer Networks, Multiplex, Cable and Cryptography/Security (Technology Center 2400); Communications (Technology Center 2600); and Transportation, Electronic Commerce, Construction, Agriculture, Licensing and Review (Technology Center 3600).  The complete list of qualifying Art Areas is available here.

(4)   The glossary must be placed at the beginning of the detailed description portion of the original specification of the application, identified with a heading, and presented on filing of the application. Definitions for key terminology found in the claims, terms with special definitions, abbreviations, relative terms, terms of degree and functional terminology should be provided, but cannot rely on other parts of the application for completeness, cannot consist of what the term does not mean, cannot be open-ended, cannot consist solely of examples and synonyms, and cannot be disavowed elsewhere in the specifications.

(5)   Filing must be done via EFS-Web.

(6)   The application must contain at least one claim, but no more than four independent claims, and no more than 30 claims total.

 

Status of the petition will be available via Private PAIR. If a dismissal decision is received, the applicant can file a petition if it is believed that the dismissal is not proper. Also, any preliminary amendment filed after the application has entered the pilot program but before the issuance of the first Office Action will be entered unless the amendment causes the application to be non-compliant with the requirements of the program. More information can be found at the USPTO's website.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Jury Returns Verdict for Apple in Patent Infringement Suit

On Friday, May 2, 2014 a jury found Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") liable for infringing two patents owned by Apple, Inc. ("Apple").  The two patents are U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647, which is directed to systems and methods that analyze text for things that can be hyperlinked, e.g., email addresses, websites, and phone numbers, and then provides quick link options; and U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, which is directed to the touch-screen function of sliding a finger across the screen to unlock the display. The jury also concluded that Samsung did not infringe two other Apple patents—U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959 (directed at a search function that allows a user to search both a device and the internet at the same time, also known as universal search) and U.S. Patent No. 7,761,414 (directed at the data syncing functions capable of syncing data while the user is performing other tasks on the device)—and found Apple infringed one Samsung patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,226,449 (directed at camera and folder organization displayed in a gallery format). 

 

In total, Apple was awarded only $119 million of the approximately $2 billion in damages it had sought in this suit, and the majority of Apple's damage award (approximately $99 million) was from infringement of the '647 patent.  Samsung was awarded $158,400 for Apple's infringement of the ' 449 patent.  Thus, many commentators are arguing that despite Samsung's liability, the case was a victory for Samsung as it avoided a judgment nearing or greater than that awarded in August 2012 ($929 million, which is currently on appeal).  It is expected that both Apple and Samsung will file post-verdict motions or appeal parts of this verdict.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Bring on the New Year—What is in Store for IP in 2014?

Happy New Year to all of our FilewrapperÒ followers! We hope 2013 was a productive year and wish you the best in 2014. As the New Year quickly approaches we would like to share with you a few predictions for 2014 for you to look forward to and for which to prepare!

·         Increased opportunities for quasi-litigation under AIA.  Various new mechanisms are available to challenge patents under the America Inventors Act (also referred to as “AIA” or “Patent Reform”) many provisions of which took effect in 2013. New strategies are available to challenge patents at the USPTO instead of challenging in court, providing distinct advantages—and some disadvantages.  Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review and transitional programs specific for business method patents are quasi-litigation proceedings which are heard by a panel of USTPO administrative law judges.  Ex Parte Reexamination—which has been available since 1981—also remains to allow a patent challenge to be heard by a patent examiner, requiring little from the challenger other than filing required papers with some evidence of patent invalidity.  The cost for ex-parte reexamination has significantly increased, although it remains a far less expensive option than litigation with the courts.

·         (Finally) an international design patent application is available!  Design patents protect a product’s new, original and ornamental design.  Design patents present a smart option for investment in protecting a product, since they cost significantly less than utility patents and are generally granted at a much faster rate.  In addition to these benefits of filing design patents, changes in international design registration under the Hague Agreement may facilitate more effective international protection for your design inventions.  Effective December 18, 2013 a single international application designating a variety of countries for protection can be filed through the International Bureau of WIPO.  This is beneficially a single international application to be filed at one location, which will ultimately be examined by many different Offices thereafter to provide more prompt and cost effective options for design protection.  Over 60 countries and territories—including the European Union—are members of the Hague Agreement.  However, there are various countries that are excluded from this treaty (e.g. Australia, Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, India, and Brazil), which would require a separate application as has been done in the past for foreign design patents.  Nonetheless, the Hague Agreement provides significant improvements for international design protection.

·         (Some USPTO) Fees Decrease January 1, 2014.  In addition to the new classification of “micro-entity” status for Applicants to receive 75% reduction of some USPTO fees that took effect in 2013, the New Year also brings certain fee reductions.  Notably, Issue Fee payments for granted patents are substantially reduced (from $1,780 to $960 for large entity), along with the removal of publication fees and assignment recordation fees.  Reissue patent, design patent and plant patent issue fees are also decreasing.  In addition, in 2014 certain PCT fees will be eligible for payment under small and micro entity status.

·         The search continues for a test to determine patentable subject matter under §101.  The Supreme Court will hear CLS Bank v. Alice in 2014 after the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in 2013 found many software patents to be ineligible.  The Supreme Court will again try to define an abstract idea in considering whether claims to a computerized method (using a computer-readable medium and a computer to implement instructions) is patentable subject matter.  Both the Federal Circuit and patentees are still searching for a test under §101 that is “consistent, cohesive, and accessible [to provide] guidance and predictability for patent applicants and examiners, litigants, and the courts.”

·         We may receive further guidance on Claim Indefiniteness.  The Supreme Court is expected to grant certiorari on Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments involving indefiniteness under §112, second paragraph to determine whether claims having multiple reasonable interpretations are too ambiguous and would render a patent unenforceable for lack of written description.

·         Protecting American from “Patent Trolls.”  As previously reported on FilewrapperÒ, there is legislative movement in the House and Senate to limit lawsuits which can be filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs or Patent Trolls).  There seems to be great energy around limiting “frivolous” lawsuits in our court system.  In early 2014, the Senate will consider a companion bill to Senate 1720 ("Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013"), which is said to already have support from the White House.  If legislation passes the Senate, then the House and Senate bills will need to be reconciled before being sent to the President.

·         New Patent Director.  Stay tuned for further administrative changes at the USPTO as the new Director, Michelle Lee, takes office January 13, 2014. The former Google executive has been made deputy director of the USPTO, and in that capacity will take on the duties of acting director.  Lee has issued statements planning to “attack” the backlog of unexamined patents (remains at more than 500,000) and improve patent quality with improved inter partes review.

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: H.R. 3309 – The Innovation Act

On December 5, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3309, the "Innovation Act", with bipartisan support by an overwhelming margin of 325-91 votes.  H.R. 3309 was drafted to address the perceived growing problem of abusive patent litigation attributed to alleged “patent trolls.”  Early next year, the Senate will likely consider a companion bill, S. 1720, the "Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013", previously introduced by Senator Leahy (D-VT).  While S. 1720 has similar goals of H.R. 3309, the bills have many provisions that are not shared or coextensive.  Thus, it remains to be seen what impact H.R. 3309's passage will have on Senate deliberations in light of the fact the bill enjoys support from the White House.  If legislation passes the Senate, then the House and Senate bills will need to be reconciled in conference committee and sent to the President's desk for signature.  In the meantime, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary will address the issue by holding a hearing entitled "Protecting Small Businesses and Promoting Innovation by Limiting Patent Troll Abuse" on December 17, 2013.

 

Supporters of H.R. 3309 praised its passage as instituting important patent reforms made necessary after the passage of the America Invents Act (P.L. 112-29).  Particularly, the bill heightens pleading standards; requires patent plaintiffs to name anyone who has a financial interest in the patent being litigated; requires courts to delay the discovery process until after claim construction is determined; creates a voluntary process for small businesses to postpone patent lawsuits while their larger sellers complete similar patent lawsuits against the same plaintiff; and, allows a manufacturer to intervene in a lawsuit against its customers and have the action stayed for the customer if both the customer and manufacturer agree.  The centerpiece of the legislation is a fee-shifting provision that requires courts (with some exceptions) to award prevailing parties reasonable attorneys' fees and other expenses when parties bring frivolous lawsuits or claims that have no reasonable basis in law or fact.  Proponents of this legislation include broad support from the technology sector, including internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple.  H.R. 3309 is also favored by brick-and-mortar industries such as restaurants, retailers, realtors, hotels, casinos, airlines, and the auto industry.

 

On the other side, opponents of H.R. 3309 are concerned that the fee-shifting provision would likely favor wealthy parties while discouraging small inventors from pursuing legitimate patent infringement claims.  Opponents include members of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, the Intellectual Property Owners' Association, patent attorneys, and even universities—which warned that the legislation would harm their patent-licensing revenues.  Notably, the Biotechnology Industry Organization ("BIO") believes that the Act will undermine biotech research and innovation, as it would ultimately make it more difficult for patent holders with legitimate claims to protect their intellectual property.  In a press release, BIO stated "[p]rovisions in the legislation would erect unreasonable barriers to access justice for innovators, especially small start-ups that must be able to defend their businesses against patent infringement in a timely and cost-effective manner, and without needless and numerous procedural hurdles or other obstacles."

 

Additional information about H.R. 3309 and S. 1720 will be available shortly from MVS. 

MVS Filewrapper® Blog: Changes to Implement and Guidelines for Examination under AIA

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has released its rules regarding changes under first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. The rules published by the USPTO in the Federal Register on March 16, 2013 provide guidelines for implementing the new patent law and guidelines for examination of patent applications under the new standards.  The documents cover a broad range of topics, with a high degree of specificity, but we provide highlights from both of the Federal Register publications are as follows:

-          First-to-file standards only apply to applications filed on or after March 16, 2013

If an application claims priority to an application filed prior to March 16, 2013, it will be examined under the pre-AIA guidelines, i.e., first to invent standard.  The application may not claim new matter, i.e., matter not supported by the originally filed application (priority application).  If the application does have new matter, it will be examined under the first-to-file standards.

-          Required statements from the applicant in transition applications

Transition applications are those where a non-provisional application is filed on or after March 16, 2013 that claims priority or the benefit of the filing date of an earlier application.  If the application contains, or at any time contained, a claim to an invention that has an effective filing date of March 16, 2013 or after, the applicant is required to file a statement indicating that there is matter or was matter claimed that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.  The guidelines clearly state that the particular limitation does not have to be specified.  Thus, if any new matter is added to the claims of a transition application, the Applicant must inform the patent office in a statement.

-          In certain respects, prior art under the statute is broader than before

For applications being examined under the first-to-file standards, prior art is broader than before.  Now any patent or published patent application is prior art as of its earliest effective U.S., foreign, or international filing date.  Furthermore, the first-to-file standard eliminates the requirement that prior public use or sale be “in this country,” and therefore may now be anywhere in the world.

-          Interference proceedings have been replaced by the new derivation proceedings

      Under the first-to-invent standards interference proceedings existed to determine who invented first.  Under the new first-to-file patentability standards, interference proceedings have been replaced by derivation proceedings.  The derivation proceedings are instituted to determine if a prior public disclosure of an invention was actually derived from the inventor and is one that does not bar the invention from patentability

New and Useful - January 23, 2013

·         In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES.  Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.”  Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks—opposed the registration.  The TTAB concluded that Amazon Technologies, Inc. had priority in the AMAZON.COM marks, and that there was a likelihood of confusion between Amazon Technologies’ marks and those of the applicant.  The Applicant challenged the TTAB’s findings that (1) Amazon Technologies’ marks are famous, (2) the similarity of Amazon Technologies’ mark to AMAZON VENTURES, and (3) the similarity of the parties' services and channels of trade.  The Federal Circuit confirmed the TTAB’s findings, based in part on the wide latitude of protection afforded to Amazon Technologies’ on account of its fame within the buying public.  

·         The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court’s judgment and damages for Hallmark Cards, Inc. against a former employee for breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets.  The district court entered the jury’s award of damages in the amount of $860,000.  The Eight Circuit affirmed $735,000 of the damages as they related to breach of contract and disclosure of trade secrets, but overturned $125,000 the former employee earned in compensation from a competitor. 

·         The Federal Circuit has dismissed as moot an appeal from a patent infringement suit.  Allflex U.S.A., Inc. sued Avid Identification Systems, Inc. seeking a declaratory judgment that six of Avid’s patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Allflex, at which time the parties entered into a settlement agreement that resolved all of the claims and issues between the parties upon payment of $6.55 million from Avid to Allflex, except for a provision that allowed Avid to appeal three specific issues.  The agreement further provided that Allflex could contest any appeal on the merits, but could not dispute the existence of a live case or controversy, and that if Avid were successful on any issue on appeal, the payment to Allflex would be reduced by $50,000.  The district court accepted the settlement agreement and entered a stipulated order of final judgment that stated the case was dismissed with prejudice with the exception of findings the court considered “final and ripe for appellate review.”  Avid then appealed to the Federal Circuit, but Allflex declined to file a brief defending the judgment of the district court. 

The Federal Circuit concluded that the appeal was moot.  Avid argued that, although the case would be moot if it were not for the $50,000 contingency payment, that payment ensured that there was a real controversy between the parties.  The court dismissed Avid’s argument, concluding that while the district court’s decision was effectively final and therefore appealable, Allflex no longer had a legally cognizable interest in any of the issues in the case, and the payment was insufficient to create any interest

·         The USPTO has announced the new fee schedule.  The changes, initiated under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, are set to take effect March 19, 2013.  Among the notable changes are:

o   A 75% reduction in most fees for micro entities, including Universities.

o   Increase in basic filing fee:  $1,600 (large entity); $800 (small entity); $400 (micro entity)

o   Increase in appeal fees, due in large part to a new “Appeal Forwarding Fee for Appeal in Examination or Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding or Filing a Brief in Support of an Appeal in Inter Partes Reexamination”:  $2,800 (large entity); $1,400 (small entity); $700 (micro entity)

o   Decrease in issue fees:  $960 (large entity); $480 (small entity); $240 (micro entity)

o   Increase in maintenance fees:

§  First (3.5 years):  $1,600 (large entity); $800 (small entity); $400 (micro entity)

§  Second (7.5 years):  $3,600; $1,800; $900

§  Third (11.5 years):  $7,400; $3,700; $1,850

o   Decrease in supplemental examination fees:  $16,500 (large entity); $8,250 (small entity); $4,125 (micro entity)

The complete finalized rules are available here.

New and Useful - Janurary 14, 2013

·         The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.  The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot.  The Court held that because Already failed to show that it engages in or has sufficiently concrete plans to engage in activities that would arguably infringe Nike’s trademark yet not be covered by the covenant not to sue, its claims could not survive Nike’s motion to dismiss. 

 

·        The USPTO has issued a Request for Comments and Notice of Roundtable Events for Partnership for Enhancement of Quality of Software-Related Patents.  The notice provides two separate roundtable events with the same agendas, one occurring in Silicon Valley on Tuesday February 12, 2013, beginning at 9 a.m. and the second occurring in New York City on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 beginning at 9 a.m. (both local time).  Topics on the agenda include: (1) how to improve clarity of claim boundaries that define the scope of patent protection for claims that use functional language; (2) identification of additional topics for future discussion by the Software Partnership; and (3) opportunity for oral presentations on the Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications. Written comments are requested in response to the first two discussion topics. Written comments on the third discussion topic must be submitted as directed in the forthcoming Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications.  Registration for the events is requested by February 4, 2013.  For additional information see the official notice.

·       The USPTO has also extended a pilot program allowing an applicant to request a twelve-month time period to pay the search fee, the examination fee, any excess claim fees, and the surcharge (for the late submission of the search fee and the examination fee) in a nonprovisional application, under specific conditions.  The program has been extended until December 31, 2013, with the possibility of further extension.  To qualify, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions: (1) Applicant must submit a certification and request to participate in the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program with the nonprovisional application on filing, (2) the application must be a nonprovisional utility or plant application filed within the duration of the pilot program; (3) the nonprovisional application must directly claim the benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78 of a prior provisional application filed within the previous twelve months (the specific reference to the provisional application must be in an application data sheet); and (4) applicant must not have filed a nonpublication request. Additional information is available here.

 

·       The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and remanded in part a decision by the Southern District of New York finding willful infringement on the part of a retailer for infringing the Fendi trademark by selling allegedly counterfeit Fendi-branded products.  The district court awarded $12,324,062.66 in trebled damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, including disgorgement of Ashley Reed's based on a finding of willful infringement.  The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of infringement and willfulness, but remanded for clarification of the period of disgorgement. 

 

·        The Federal Circuit has issued a new opinion on determining obviousness.  A more thourough examination of the dicision in The C.W. Zumbiel Company, Inc. v. Kappos will be available soon here at Filewrapper. 

More Entries

BlogCFC was created by Raymond Camden. This blog is running version 5.8.001.