Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 01:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No response from nominator.

DYK toolbox

Czarnik v. Illumina Inc.

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that after the Czarnik v. Illumina Inc. patent law case, if you are an inventor and have been left off the inventors list, legal remedy is available?

Created by AWCzarnik (talk). Nominated by FamJoshua1 (talk) at 08:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC).

@Narutolovehinata5: Please find the new hook for your review -
  • ALT1: ... that for the first time, in Czarnik v. Illumina Inc., a court has ruled that an inventor has grounds to sue if their name has been left off a U.S. patent?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamJoshua1 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It might need to be rephrased further, it's still a bit difficult to read. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sure, please find the new hook for your review -
This hook is inaccurate; as a district court decision this is not precedent as the hook implies. Indeed, the article's intro says this has created a split among district courts that has yet to be resolved. Daniel Case (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
If it does, we can call for a reviewer to do a full review of the nomination. I'm not sure what text is best being the bold link, and if another placement works better, go for it. Thanks. (I've struck ALT2 because it is indeed inaccurate.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It's good for me. Daniel Case (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Full review needed now that a workable hook has been proposed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no problems with the hook wording. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
How is the case notable? Almost all of the sources are primary and there's no subject-specific guideline for cases, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. Am I missing something? – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for a merge with Illumina, Inc. due to a lack of secondary sources; this nomination will need to be on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. – Teratix ₵ 05:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The nominator hasn't edited at all since March, which makes be believe that the notability issues are unlikely to ever be addressed. In addition, I just realized that the article creator appears to be none other than the Czarnik referred to in the article, so there might be a possible COI issue here either way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You didn't realise that before? – Teratix ₵ 05:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually no. With that said, given the nominator's inactivity, I'd suggest closing this regardless of the outcome of the merge discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering a lack of response from the nominator and the COI issues, there appears to be no choice but to mark this for closure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Czarnik_v._Illumina_Inc.&oldid=898359794"