Do you know if there was any reason provided by the FDA,or your sources did they suggest, just why or what reason the FDA picked that February 2007 date? I mean they had to provide some reasoning as to why that was significant?
Post 14 of this thread explains it, Date Bill was introduced.
I am quite certain the former president of Ruyan would know when they "marketed" their products here. In one line you decimated the first OP thread, thanks, for doing it the short way. (That stuff kind of looks like rotten onions now.)
I posted this, before the meeting took place,, and there is nothing in the OP that is anything beyond linking up some information about the first E-Cigs coming into the US, so I don't understand how that information is decimated or rotten. Subsequently I posted the information on how the FDA defines "Commercially Marketed", because it is a legal term as used by the FDA. I then posted the actual guidance from the FDA on that exact topic. I do play Chess, and understanding what is on the board is important regardless if it can actually be used successfully or not.
If Ruyan was marketing the E-Cig, and it was being sold by importers, and if you look at the text of what the FDA has written, IT REMAINS possible that the FDA could agree that the Ruyan could be used as predicate. They have some incentive to do so, as it simplifies problem areas for them, but lets them retain control of what the Predicate is. By including the Ruyan as Predicate, based off whatever set of information can be obtained, they also avoid legal challenges to the law asserting the law is not a valid law, because it planned implantation is a backend banning of Tobacco Products, where an entire Category being legally sold today.
Without granting a predicate, the legal challenges are strengthened.
1) Tombaker says "application granting the right to bring product in, in 2006." Tom, the document you are referring to is a US Customs classification of product document. IT IS NOT AN APPLICATION for anything. It has nothing to do with selling or marketing. I know cause I used to import products.
I refer you to the guidance link I posted. And reiterated that the actual determinatizon my or may not be the defintion being used by former Ruyan Employees. It may be the old CEO is right, but before he is, there is an oppertunity to argue for the Ruyan as Predicate. Up to the point it is rejected specifically. This is why I asked if there is any knowledge if V2, BLU and the rest are going to use this. They have legal teams working obviously, and their first reaction is We can live with these regs. The diacotomy between the large E-Cig makers reaction, compared to the little vendors.
2) Tombaker says "They Ruyun was being sold at the right time, the Patent's reflect that,.." Tom, once a product is announced or people become aware of its existence, a company only has one year to file a patent or they lose there patent rights. It is proof of nothing when it comes to "the product being sold at the right time." I know this because I have filed a patent application before.
Again I refer you to the FDA guidance on the defintion. The Ruyan was certainly on the worldwide radar in 2006. It was being brought into the USA also. Ruyan was doing interview with publication talking about their future plans. Distributors were bring it in. My reading of the actual FDA document, does not even list out Sales figures. So I can not just assume that sales numbers are required, BY THEIR DEFINITION. You are leaping to say Sales = Marketing, when the actual document does not reflect that at all.
My point is simply it worth the test, put it to the FDA, they could accept it or reject it, but you won't get a date unless you ask the girl out.
4) Tom, you gave a source of a company selling ecigarettes and ejuice THAT WAS IN CHINA. The FDA proposed regs somewhere on or in page 11, says "commercially marketed in the United States." And it would not matter if Ruyun marketed their products in Bolivia in 2004. In means, in the United States Tom.
The WWW offers a English website that will deliver products to you. Before giving up, I would attempt it. My method of not precluding an option is far safer than you saying the option does not exist.
And 4 wrongs do not make a right. And now Tom you are 0 for 2. I tried, Tom down in the tinfoil section, I offered my assistance to polish this up, to get the rough edges ironed out, but you didn't respond. Look Tom, I might have some time over on the Tinfoil thread latter this weekend or next week. If you want I will try and help.
I'll go back and check my original analysis thread, I don't know why it was removed, it has over 2000 likes 13K views and 600+post, most not being mine.....I did not see what you wanted me to reply to, the thread is impossible to find. I spent good effort on it, the thread being black listed is insulting.
Look at the economic outlook and the FDA isn't at all concerned about 'small and medium business exiting' from the market. Based on that alone is enough to form the belief that they DON'T intend to work with us.
