IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Inventorship
Subscribe to Inventorship's Posts

Patent disclosure erases trade secret protection

by | Apr 30, 2026 | ,

Addressing the boundary between patent disclosures and trade secret protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s findings of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and improper inventorship, concluding that the asserted “trade secrets” were generally known and therefore not protectable under California law. The Court affirmed, however, a $1 million statutory damages award for trademark counterfeiting. International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, Case Nos. 25 1580; 1605 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2026) (Dyk, Reyna, Taranto, JJ.)

International Medical Devices, Menova International, and Dr. James Elist (collectively, the plaintiffs) manufacture and sell the Penuma® cosmetic penile implant. The plaintiffs sued Dr. Robert Cornell and associated individuals and entities after Cornell attended a Penuma® surgical training session under a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) and later helped develop a competing implant. The plaintiffs asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of the NDA, trademark counterfeiting based on unauthorized use of the Penuma® mark, and invalidity of two cosmetic implant patents for failure to name Elist as an inventor.

A jury found for the plaintiffs on all claims. After a bench trial on remedies, the district court awarded more than $17 million in trade secret and exemplary damages, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded $1 million in statutory damages for counterfeiting. Cornell appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the trade secret verdict in its entirety, concluding that none of the asserted trade secrets were protectable under California law. The Court concluded that the alleged technical trade secrets were disclosed in publicly available patents and thus were “generally known” as a matter of law.

In doing so, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the long-standing principle that “that which is disclosed in a patent cannot be a trade secret.” Once information enters the public domain through patent disclosures, it cannot later be reclaimed as confidential business information through trade secret law.

The plaintiffs’ remaining alleged trade secret (a list of surgical instruments) fared no better. The Federal Circuit found that the list had been emailed to the defendants without any confidentiality designation or obligation, defeating any claim that reasonable measures were taken to maintain its secrecy.

Because the plaintiffs failed to identify any confidential information beyond the alleged trade secrets, the Federal Circuit also reversed the breach of contract verdict. The NDA expressly excluded information that was “generally available to the public,” and the Court found that an NDA cannot transform public domain information into protected confidential material.

The Federal Circuit reached a different conclusion on trademark counterfeiting, however, and affirmed the jury’s finding and the $1 million statutory damages award. The Court explained that the evidence showed that Cornell had advertised and offered Penuma® implants without authorization. Cornell argued that the Penuma® mark was registered only for goods, not services, and therefore could not support a counterfeiting claim tied to surgical procedures. The Court rejected that argument, concluding there was sufficient evidence that Cornell offered the Penuma® implant itself as a good, not merely a medical service.

Finally, the Federal Circuit [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Where’s Waldo? Inventorship error fatal when omitted coinventor cannot be found

by | Apr 16, 2026 |

Addressing the limits of correcting inventorship, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed an invalidity determination where an omitted coinventor could not be added because statutory notice requirements could not be satisfied. Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., Case No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) (Lourie, Hughes, Kleeh, JJ.)

Building products manufacturer Fortress Iron sued competitor Digger Specialties for infringement of two patents directed to pre assembled vertical cable railing panels. The inventions resulted from collaboration among Fortress’ owner and an employee, as well as two employees of its quality control liaison, Hua Ping Huang and Alfonso Lin, who proposed design changes to address cable tensioning issues. The issued patents, however, named only Fortress personnel and omitted Lin and Huang as coinventors.

During the litigation, Fortress acknowledged that Lin and Huang were coinventors. Fortress successfully added Lin under 35 U.S.C. § 256(a) but was unable to locate Huang, who had left the liaison company years earlier without providing contact information. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, with Fortress seeking correction of inventorship and Digger seeking invalidity. The district court denied Fortress’ motion and held the patents invalid for incorrect inventorship. Fortress appealed.

Fortress argued that Huang was not a “party concerned” under § 256(b) and therefore was not entitled to notice and a hearing. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, explaining that an omitted inventor qualifies as a “party concerned” regardless of whether the inventor has a demonstrated economic interest in the patent. The Court explained that inventorship carries legal, financial, and ownership consequences that an inventor has a right to contest, and § 256(b)’s notice and hearing requirements cannot be bypassed. The Court further clarified that standing and “party concerned” status under § 256(b) are distinct legal concepts with different requirements.

The Federal Circuit also rejected Fortress’ characterization of § 256(b) as a broadly permissive “savings provision,” explaining that the statute only operates to save patents once its procedural prerequisites of notice and an opportunity to be heard are satisfied.

Turning to Fortress’ second argument, the Federal Circuit concluded that a patent that incorrectly lists its inventors and cannot be corrected under § 256 has a clear statutory basis for invalidity. Reading § 256(b) together with §§ 101 and 100(f), the Court concluded that when an invention has multiple inventors, all must be named. Allowing a patent to survive with only some inventors listed would render § 256’s corrective framework meaningless.

Practice note: The decision underscores the importance of accurate inventorship determinations and the practical risk that patents may be rendered invalid if an omitted inventor cannot be located and statutory correction requirements cannot be met.



read more

Too late to help: Inventorship fix fails to revive forfeited argument

by | Mar 19, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, concluding that the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 does not bar the application of forfeiture principles in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and that a patent owner that fails to timely raise an antedating theory during an IPR may forfeit reliance on a later corrected inventorship to resurrect that theory. Implicit, LLC v. Sonos, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1173; -1174 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (Taranto, Stoll, Cunningham, JJ.)

Implicit owns patents directed to content rendering that originally named Edward Balassanian and Scott Bradley as co-inventors. Sonos filed IPR petitions against both patents, asserting unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, primarily based on Janevski, which had an effective prior art date of December 11, 2001.

To avoid Janevski as prior art, Implicit argued that the inventions were conceived and reduced to practice before December 11, 2001. It contended that Balassanian and Bradley conceived of the inventions and collaborated with another engineer, Guy Carpenter, to implement the invention prior to December 2001. Implicit argued that Carpenter’s work inured to the benefit of the named inventors, thereby antedating Janevski. The Board rejected Implicit’s argument and found the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated or obvious over Janevski. The Board found Implicit’s evidence insufficient to establish conception and communication of the invention by Carpenter in a manner that would support an earlier reduction to practice.

Following the Federal Circuit’s and Supreme Court’s decisions in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew addressing the Appointments Clause as applied to IPR proceedings, the case was remanded to permit Director review. While proceedings were ongoing, Implicit sought correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256 to add Carpenter as a co-inventor. The United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) granted the request and issued certificates of correction in August 2022. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Board to determine what impact, if any, the corrections had on the prior final written decisions. The Board concluded that equitable doctrines, including forfeiture, precluded Implicit from relying on the corrected inventorship to advance a new antedating theory. Implicit appealed.

The appeal presented two principal questions:

  • Whether the retroactive effect of a correction of inventorship under § 256 forecloses application of forfeiture principles in an IPR proceeding.
  • Whether the Board abused its discretion in finding that Implicit forfeited its right to assert a new antedating theory based on corrected inventorship.

Implicit argued that § 256 contains no temporal limitation and that corrections operate retroactively, requiring the Board to revisit its unpatentability determinations once Carpenter was added as an inventor. Sonos and the USPTO countered that Implicit had litigated the IPRs on a single inventorship theory and waited until after adverse final written decisions to change course.

The Federal Circuit affirmed on both grounds.

First, the Federal Circuit found that forfeiture principles may apply notwithstanding the retroactive effect of § 256. Although [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Vague definitions deflate tire trade secret claims

by | Dec 18, 2025 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that the plaintiff failed to prove misappropriation of five alleged trade secrets related to self-inflating tire (SIT) technology and separately rejected the plaintiff’s claim for correction of inventorship of defendant’s patent related to the alleged trade secrets. Coda Dev. S.R.O., et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., et al., Case No. 23-1880 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025) (Lourie, Dyk, Cunningham, JJ.)

Coda sued Goodyear in the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that Goodyear misappropriated trade secrets disclosed during SIT-technology collaboration discussions and that Coda’s founder should be added as an inventor on Goodyear’s patent related to the same technology. A jury initially found for Coda on five trade secrets (TS 7, 11, 20, 23, and 24) and awarded more than $64 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The district court, however, granted Goodyear JMOL, holding that the asserted trade secrets were insufficiently definite, not secret, and/or never used or disclosed by Goodyear. It later denied Coda’s inventorship claim of a Goodyear patent related to the alleged trade secrets after a bench proceeding. Coda appealed.

Trade secret claims

TS 24 concerned the “optimal” pump location in a tire sidewall above the rim. The Federal Circuit found that Coda had already disclosed this placement in a 2007 PCT application and a 2008 Tire Technology article, both of which discussed pump placement in the sidewall. At trial, Coda confirmed that these publications described the same location. The Federal Circuit determined that because the information was public, it could not be a trade secret.

Coda’s attempt to narrow TS 24 post hoc by adding qualifiers such as “conventional tire sidewall” failed because those limitations did not appear in Coda’s interrogatory responses in compliance with the district court’s order to provide “a complete list of the trade secrets (with particularity).” The Federal Circuit rejected Coda’s attempt to belatedly introduce additional specificity into the trade secret based on trial testimony and attorney arguments.

The Federal Circuit similarly affirmed that TS 7, 11, and 20 (which described broad categories of SIT system components and functions) failed the definiteness requirement. Each trade secret identified a list of desired features but did not specify the underlying “design and development” knowledge Coda claimed to own. Without a concrete articulation of the claimed technical know-how, the Court found that the descriptions were too vague to distinguish trade secret information from general design concepts already known in the field.

TS 23 comprised a set of pump-pressure test results. At trial, Coda offered only a single 2009 email that mentioned one of the pressure values listed in TS 23. The Federal Circuit found that this partial overlap could not sustain a verdict of “use,” particularly when no evidence showed Goodyear had received or relied on the totality of the testing data. The Court also found that Coda’s arguments about Goodyear proceeding with its SIT project after the email failed to establish a [...]

Continue Reading



read more

No Co-Inventorship Absent Corroborated Conception

by | Jan 23, 2025 |

In a patent case concerning cryptocurrency data mining, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and its ruling that a state law conversion claim was preempted by patent law of inventorship. The Court also affirmed the denial of a correction to the inventorship claim. BearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, Case No. 23-1922 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 13, 2025) (Stoll, Chen, Bryson, JJ.)

BearBox was an entity founded by Austin Storms that developed and designed mobile cryptocurrency data centers. It operated a half-megawatt data center but was unprofitable as a consequence of the high cost of electricity and the data center’s high energy requirements. Lancium was an entity that aimed to co-locate data centers at wind farms to use the highly variable power generated for data mining but sell excess electricity to the grid when electricity cost was high. BearBox and Lancium met in 2019 at a cryptocurrency mining summit. At that time, BearBox was looking to find customers for its newly developed BearBox containers, and Lancium was in the market for those containers. Both BearBox and Lancium had developed similar software to detect profitable time periods for cryptocurrency mining. Their systems aimed to mine cryptocurrency during periods when electricity prices were low, while selling the energy to the grid when prices were high. Lancium disclosed these concepts in an international patent application filed 15 months before Storms met anyone at Lancium.

BearBox’s system was discussed over dinner at the summit and in a single email exchange afterwards. However, BearBox never disclosed any source code associated with the BearBox system to Lancium. The email exchange was the last communication between the two parties. About five months after the meeting, Lancium filed a patent application that related to a set of computing systems configured to perform computational operations using electricity from a power grid and to a control system that monitored a set of conditions and received power option data based at least in part on a power option algorithm. After that application matured into a patent, BearBox filed suit asserting sole or joint inventorship of the patent and conversion under Louisiana state law.

Lancium moved for summary judgment on the conversion claim. The district court granted the motion, noting that federal patent law preempted the claim. However, the district court denied Lancium’s motion for summary judgment on the inventorship claims – claims that were then heard at a bench trial. At trial, the district court concluded that BearBox failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that BearBox’s founder, Storms, conceived any part of the claimed invention. BearBox appealed.

The Federal Circuit began by assessing the ruling on preemption of BearBox’s conversion claim. Relying on its 2005 decision in Ultra-Precision Mfg. v. Ford Motor, the Court noted that although the state law of conversion does not squarely implicate federal patent law, the way a conversion claim is pled may “[stand] as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO on AI Inventorship: Will the Real Natural Human Inventors Please Stand Up?

by | Feb 22, 2024 |

On February 13, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice with examination guidance and request for comment regarding inventorship in applications involving artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions. The guidance reinforces the patentability of AI-assisted inventions and sets forth preliminary guidelines for determining inventorship with a focus on human contributions in this process.

The PTO released the guidance in response to President Biden’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (October 30, 2023). The executive order mandated that the PTO, within 120 days, present “guidance to USPTO patent examiners and applicants addressing inventorship and the use of AI, including generative AI, in the inventive process, including illustrative examples in which AI systems play different roles in inventive processes and how, in each example, inventorship issues ought to be analyzed.”

As in any inventorship determination for non-AI-generated inventions, “AI-assisted inventions must name the natural person(s) who significantly contributed to the invention as the inventor or joint inventor, even if an AI system may have been instrumental in the creation of the claimed invention.” As is the case for all inventions, the threshold question for inventorship in AI-assisted inventions is who made a “significant contribution” to the conception of at least one claim of the patent. For this evaluation, the Pannu factors (Federal Circuit 1998, Pannu v. Iolab Corp.) for inventorship should be considered.

With specific reference to AI-assisted inventions, the notice provides a non-exhaustive list of principles based on the Pannu factors for AI inventorship determinations:

  • Use of AI systems is not a barrier to inventorship. Use of an AI system does not negate a natural person making a significant contribution to an AI-assisted invention. To be an inventor, a natural person must have significantly contributed to each claim in a patent application or patent.
  • Recognizing a problem or obtaining a solution may be insufficient. The mere recognition of a problem or having a general goal or plan to pursue or obtain a solution from the AI input does not rise to the level of conception. The way in which a person constructs a prompt in view of the problem for eliciting a particular solution may be important for qualifying that person as an inventor.
  • Reduction to practice alone is insufficient. Reducing an invention to practice alone does not constitute a “significant contribution,” nor does the mere recognition and appreciation of the AI system output rise to the level of inventorship, especially where the output would be apparent to those of ordinary skill. By contrast, a significant contribution may exist where a person makes a significant contribution to the output or conducts a successful experiment from the output to create an invention.
  • Developing an essential building block of an AI system may be sufficient. A person developing an essential building block of an AI system to address a specific problem, where the building block is instrumental in eliciting a solution from the output, may be a proper inventor.
  • “Intellectual domination” over [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

Inventorship Hosed Clean: Contribution, Corroboration and Collaboration Prove Joint Invention

by | Jun 22, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to correct inventorship, finding that the alleged joint inventor’s contribution to a claimed invention was significant and adequately corroborated by evidence. Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., Case Nos. 21-2316; -2317 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2023) (Prost, Chen, Stark, JJ.)

Blue Gentian owns utility and design patents directed to an expandable hose. Prior to filing the first patent application, Michael Berardi (the sole inventor of the asserted patents and Blue Gentian’s principal) met with non-party Gary Ragner to discuss investing in Ragner’s expandable hose. Berardi had no experience designing hoses at the time of the meeting. Berardi testified that he came up with the idea of his hose after watching a demonstration video of Ragner’s hose but before the meeting. At the meeting, Ragner disclosed a prototype and documents relating to his hose and discussed the inner components of the hose. Berardi built his first prototype a day after the meeting and filed his first patent application three months later. Blue Gentian subsequently filed suit against Tristar for infringement of its expandable hose patents. Tristar counterclaimed to correct inventorship of the patents, alleging that Ragner should have been named a co-inventor.

A court may order a correction of inventorship when it determines that an inventor has been erroneously omitted from a patent. The inventors listed on an issued patent, however, are presumed to be the only true inventors. Thus, a party must prove incorrect inventorship by clear and convincing evidence. An alleged joint inventor’s testimony standing alone is insufficient to establish inventorship by clear and convincing evidence; the testimony must be corroborated by evidence. A joint inventor must contribute significantly to the invention’s conception or reduction to practice, and the contribution must involve some collaboration with the other inventor.

The district court, after an evidentiary hearing, entered judgment on the inventorship counterclaim in Tristar’s favor and ordered correction of the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Blue Gentian appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that Ragner conveyed three key elements of the hose to Berardi at the meeting and that these elements were a significant contribution to the conception of at least one claim of each asserted patent. The Court noted that these were the very elements Blue Gentian used to distinguish the invention from the prior art, establishing the element’s significance. The Court also found that Ragner’s testimony about conveying the three elements to Berardi at the meeting was adequately corroborated by both physical and circumstantial evidence. The evidence showed the similarity between Ragner’s disclosed prototype and Berardi’s first prototype, and documentary evidence showed Ragner’s familiarity with the three elements before the meeting. Finally, the Court found sufficient collaboration between Berardi and Ragner based on the information exchanged at the meeting, including Ragner’s prototype, confidential documents and verbal explanations about alternative hose designs.

The Federal Circuit dismissed Blue Gentian’s argument that claim construction was needed before analyzing Ragner’s contribution because Blue Gentian did not identify a dispute [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO to Host Listening Session on Role of AI in Innovation

by | Apr 13, 2023 |

As previously reported, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a Request for Comments Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship, seeking input from stakeholders on inventorship issues that may arise as artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies play a greater role in the innovation process. In the wake of the request, the PTO published a Notice announcing that it is hosting a listening session to address the “current state of AI technologies and inventorship issues,” including whether AI should qualify as an inventor and whether the PTO should expand its current guidance.

The listening session will be held at the PTO’s headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on April 25, 2023, from 10:30 am to 2:45 pm EDT. Anyone seeking to speak at the listening session must register by 5:00 pm EDT on April 20, 2023. Anyone seeking to attend, either virtually or in person, but not speak at the event must register by April 24, 2023.

Registration information is available here.



read more

PTO Seeks Comments on Role of Artificial Intelligence in Inventorship

by | Mar 2, 2023 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) published a Request for Comments Regarding Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship seeking input from stakeholders on inventorship issues that may arise as artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technologies play a greater role in the innovation process. The deadline to submit comments is May 15, 2023.

As background, the PTO held its inaugural AI and Emerging Technologies Partnership meeting, during which panelists discussed AI’s increasing role in innovation, in June 2022. Although there appeared to be consensus that AI cannot “conceive” of inventions, some panelists contended that AI is merely a tool like any other tool used in the inventive process, while others pointed to situations in which AI systems can output patentable inventions or contribute at the level of a joint inventor. While the PTO has been exploring the contours of inventorship law with respect to AI-generated inventions, in August 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Thaler v. Vidal, finding that inventorship is limited to natural persons. The Court explained, however, that it was not confronted with “the question of whether inventions made by human beings with the assistance of AI are eligible for patent protection.”

Recognizing the uncertainty surrounding the role of AI inventorship in the wake of the Thaler decision, the PTO seeks public comment on several questions, including the following:

1. How is AI, including machine learning, currently being used in the invention creation process?

2. How does the use of an AI system in the invention creation process differ from the use of other technical tools?

3. If an AI system contributes to an invention at the same level as a human who would be considered a joint inventor, is the invention patentable under current patent laws?

4. Do inventions in which an AI system contributed at the same level as a joint inventor raise any significant ownership issues?

5. Is there a need for the PTO to expand its current guidance on inventorship to address situations in which AI significantly contributes to an invention? How should the significance of a contribution be assessed?

6. Should the PTO require applicants to provide an explanation of contributions AI systems made to inventions claimed in patent applications? If so, how should that be implemented, and what level of contributions should be disclosed? Should contributions to inventions made by AI systems be treated differently from contributions made by other (e., non-AI) computer systems?

7. What additional steps, if any, should the PTO take to further incentivize AI-enabled innovation (e.g., innovation in which machine learning or other computational techniques play a significant role in the invention creation process)?

8. What statutory changes, if any, should be considered as to US inventorship law, and what consequences do you foresee for those statutory changes?



read more

2023 IP Outlook: What to Watch in Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law

by , , , , , , , , , , , , , and | Feb 7, 2023 | , , , , ,

Coming out of 2022, developments around the globe are shaping the intellectual property (IP) landscape in the new year. We are seeing cases at the intersection of IP law and NFTs, the opening of the Unified Patent Court in Europe, and decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affecting innovators and brand owners.

McDermott’s 2023 IP Outlook examines the top trends and decisions in IP law from the past year and shares what you and your business should look out for in the year ahead.

The Latest in SEP Licensing

Amol Parikh

The uncertainty surrounding standard essential patent (SEP) licensing persisted in 2022 and shows little sign of clearing in 2023. SEPs must be licensed to technology implementers on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Because there is no formal definition of FRAND terms, however, legal decisions involving FRAND have historically been determined by courts and non-governmental standard-setting organizations (SSOs). Disputes are frequent—especially between patent owners and technology implementers—and are becoming even more so as advanced wireless technologies such as 5G and WiFi 6 proliferate. Read more.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Improper Inventorship in US Patent Litigations

Mandy H. Kim | Cecilia Choy, Ph.D.

Inventorship issues can have serious implications in patent litigation, leading to invalidation or unenforceability of the patent at issue, as seen in several notable 2022 cases. In the coming year, patent owners should take steps to minimize risks related to improper inventorship challenges. Read more.

—————————————————————————————————————————

Patent Decisions Affecting Pharma and Biotech Companies

Douglas H. Carsten | Anisa Noorassa

The past year brought many developments in the life sciences patent legal space. Three decisions in particular hold potential ramifications for drug makers and patent holders in 2023. This year, the Supreme Court of the United States is also expected to consider standards patents claiming a genus must meet to withstand a validity challenge under Section 112—a ruling that could have a significant impact on patent holders in the biotech industry. Read more. 

—————————————————————————————————————————

Trends in the Western District of Texas

Syed K. Fareed | Alexander Piala, Ph.D. | Christian Tatum

Over the past year, two developments infiltrated the Western District of Texas (WDTX) which may decrease the success of venue transfers and keep case volume steady in 2023. These developments could also give plaintiffs more control over where litigation takes place, including more control over having a case tried before Judge Alan Albright in the Waco Division of the WDTX.
Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES