<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="Feed Rinse - http://feedrinse.com/" -->
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0">
    <channel>
        <title>Pipra IP News</title>
        <description><![CDATA[Custom channel courtesy of Feed Rinse - http://feedrinse.com/]]></description>
        <link>http://www.feedrinse.com/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Feed Rinse - http://feedrinse.com/</generator>
        <item>
            <title>Abbott Files Brief in Therasense Case</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/9QS_JNfDvqg/abbott-files-brief-in-therasense-case.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Kevin E. Noonan -- The idea of a "golden age," almost always some time in the past, is a recurrent theme in history, literature, and myth. It is also the unspoken theme in Abbott's principal brief filed earlier this week in Therasense Inc. v. Becton Dickinson &amp; Co., and that Golden Age has an exact date: right after the Federal Circuit rendered its en banc decision in Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc., the last time the Court took up the question of inequitable conduct en banc. In an extensive (59 page) brief, Appellants argue that this case...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/9QS_JNfDvqg" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Federal Circuit</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485d2216d970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>USPTO Celebrates One-Year Anniversary of e-Office Action</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/5PxE-58ywDw/uspto-celebrates-oneyear-anniversary-of-eoffice-action.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Sydney Kokjohn -- Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office celebrated the one-year anniversary of its e-Office Action (e-OA) program. So far, the program has electronically notified patent applicants on more than 850,000 Office communications and reduced Patent Office paper usage by more than 9.2 million pages. A pilot version of the program launched in December 2006 and later expanded to include additional USPTO offices (see "USPTO begins the 'e-Office Action' Pilot Program" and "e-Office Action Pilot Program Expansion"). In February of last year, the USPTO announced the pilot e-Office Action program would be made permanent in March....<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/5PxE-58ywDw" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Patent Office Rules &amp;amp;amp; Procedures</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e20133f2ae2d47970b</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>US Jobs Bill Would Restrict Foreign Access To Patent Applications</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/us-jobs-bill-would-restrict-foreign-access-to-patent-applications/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[As the jobless rate remain high and budgets tight, United States policymakers increasingly are looking for ways to boost domestic innovation in order to create new jobs and boost the economy. One such bill to be announced tomorrow, called the "Strategic Manufacturing &#038; Job Repatriation Act" aims to develop a national manufacturing strategy to create American jobs, including by lowering access to early patent applications and prioritising university patents. 

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/04/08/uk-isps-required-to-limit-internet-access-for-ip-infringers/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: UK Passes Internet Access-Limiting Bill For Alleged IP Infringers">UK Passes Internet Access-Limiting Bill For Alleged IP Infringers</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/11/new-us-senate-patent-reform-bill-brings-many-reactions/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: New US Senate Patent Reform Bill Brings Many Reactions">New US Senate Patent Reform Bill Brings Many Reactions</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/04/new-senate-patent-reform-bill-details-released/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details Released">New Senate Patent Reform Bill Details Released</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>def48eb90ed346c0173a29792f9ae491</author>
            <category>Access to Knowledge</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11932</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>The Great Firewall of China: When Does Online Censorship Violate WTO Rules?</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/the-great-firewall-of-china-when-does-online-censorship-violate-wto-rules/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[China’s government says it is acting in the best interests of its citizens. It is regulating the internet in order to protect its people from pornography and other objectionable content. Critics, however, assert that China is guilty of wide-ranging censorship, drastically limiting what mainland residents can see, hear and say online. Moreover, according to a growing chorus, this online censorship violates World Trade Organization rules.

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/01/19/wto-adopts-appellate-body-report-on-us-china-film-distribution-dispute/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: WTO Adopts Appellate Body Report On US-China Film Distribution Dispute">WTO Adopts Appellate Body Report On US-China Film Distribution Dispute</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/10/study-flags-internet-censorship-as-open-to-challenge-at-wto/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Study Flags Internet Censorship As Open To Challenge At WTO">Study Flags Internet Censorship As Open To Challenge At WTO</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/03/as-wto-reviews-china-eu-us-criticise-its-policy-on-innovation-ip-rights/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: As WTO Reviews China, EU, US Criticise Its Policy On Innovation, IP Rights">As WTO Reviews China, EU, US Criticise Its Policy On Innovation, IP Rights</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>dc5af4d6ec81f59d7c5b44d55ae249f2</author>
            <category>Access to Knowledge</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11849</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Reminder:  Urgent Call To Support Intellectual Property Watch</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/reminder-urgent-call-to-support-intellectual-property-watch/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Dear Readers, we at Intellectual Property Watch are writing to politely remind you that the financial support of every one of you is needed this year, especially those of you who have long benefited from our open-access work and have never been asked to contribute. We set a target of end of July, just a few days away. We would like to remind you of the reliable reporting and tough-minded analysis that Intellectual Property Watch brings to a complex area that will certainly continue to be at the centre of global policy and legal debates for years to come, whether your topic is IP law, public health, climate change, food security, trade, internet policy and knowledge access, or innovation. 

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/05/help-intellectual-property-watch/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Help Intellectual Property Watch!">Help Intellectual Property Watch!</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/08/industry-intellectual-property-enforcers-named-to-new-posts/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Industry Intellectual Property Enforcers Named To New Posts">Industry Intellectual Property Enforcers Named To New Posts</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>b09b1d0155c0a6b4ce7feb6e71bb12d7</author>
            <category>Access to Knowledge</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11904</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Global AIDS Conference Sees Pledge Of Access, Call For Funding; IP Rights Discussed</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/global-aids-conference-sees-pledge-of-access-call-for-funding-ip-rights-discussed/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The global AIDS community meeting in Vienna last week ended with renewed determination to fight the epidemic but underlined an urgent need for increased funding to sustain scientific advances and universal access. Some warned against an intellectual property rights enforcement push threatening global access in particular through bilateral and regional trade agreements. 

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/19/world-conference-campaigns-for-international-focus-funding-and-research-for-hiv/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: AIDS Conference Campaigns For International Focus, Funding and Research">AIDS Conference Campaigns For International Focus, Funding and Research</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/30/pharmaceutical-patent-pools-seen-as-a-life-and-death-matter-in-kenya/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Pharmaceutical Patent Pools Seen As A Life And Death Matter In Kenya">Pharmaceutical Patent Pools Seen As A Life And Death Matter In Kenya</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>65db6dcdfb4326b7ebfbd14681813bc8</author>
            <category>Bilateral/Regional Negotiations</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11882</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>USPTO Seeks Comments On Post-Bilski Guidelines</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/uspto-seeks-comments-on-post-bilski-guidelines/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has posted supplemental interim guidance for the patent examining corps to use when determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the US Supreme Court’s holding in Bilski v. Kappos (IPW, IP Law, 29 June 2010). The new guidelines can be found in [...]

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/09/uspto-invites-comments-on-strategic-plan/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: USPTO Invites Comments On Strategic Plan">USPTO Invites Comments On Strategic Plan</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/03/uspto-seeks-comment-on-new-patent-process/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: USPTO Seeks Comment On New Patent Process">USPTO Seeks Comment On New Patent Process</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/29/in-bilski-decision-us-supreme-court-adopts-tough-but-vague-test-for-business-method-patents/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: In &lt;em&gt;Bilski&lt;/em&gt; Decision, US Supreme Court Adopts Tough But Vague Test for Business Method Patents">In <em>Bilski</em> Decision, US Supreme Court Adopts Tough But Vague Test for Business Method Patents</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>def48eb90ed346c0173a29792f9ae491</author>
            <category>English</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11880</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Is USPTO 3-Track Plan TRIPS Non-Compliant?</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/28/is-uspto-3-track-plan-trips-non-compliant/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[A new proposal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for a &#8220;Three Track&#8221; system for patent examination may violate US obligations under the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, US IP lawyer Harold Wegner, a partner at Foley &#038; Lardner, has argued.
The &#8220;Three-Track&#8221; programme would provide different [...]

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/03/uspto-seeks-comment-on-new-patent-process/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: USPTO Seeks Comment On New Patent Process">USPTO Seeks Comment On New Patent Process</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/09/uspto-invites-comments-on-strategic-plan/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: USPTO Invites Comments On Strategic Plan">USPTO Invites Comments On Strategic Plan</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/09/25/uspto-african-regional-ip-organization-agreement/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: USPTO-African Regional IP Organization Agreement">USPTO-African Regional IP Organization Agreement</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>505fb44fb2df070ca0f5c6fb6e20fa7a</author>
            <category>English</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11863</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Argentine Patent Office Issues Regulation Restricting Divisional Filings</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/_NFqDFTAKpg/argentine-patent-office-issues-regulation-restricting-divisional-filings.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Ignacio Sanchez Echagüe -- The Argentine Patent Office (Instituto Nacional de la Propiedad Industrial, INPI) has issued Regulation No. 147/2010, which restricts the ability of applicants to file divisional applications once substantive examination has begun. The regulation, which went into effect on July 16, 2010, allows applicants to file divisional applications until notice of substantive examination has been served. No divisional applications will be allowed thereafter, unless they are made in response to a request from the Argentine Patent Office. Once substantive examination has begun, if the examiner finds that the application has more than one object, the applicant...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/_NFqDFTAKpg" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>International IP</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485c40308970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Mexico to Issue Regulations for Approval of &amp;amp;quot;Biocomparable&amp;amp;quot; Drugs</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/LGufsm5774c/mexico-to-issue-regulations-for-approval-of-biocomparable-drugs-1.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Juan Serrano -- The Mexican General Health Law was reformed on June 11, 2009 to include an article 222 bis, which defined biotechnological drugs, and allowed for the approval of "biocomparables." The decree came into force on September 8, 2009, and the Ministry of Health had a 180-day period to issue all specific regulations pertaining to the approval of these biocomparables. Even though the 180-day period expired on March 8, 2010, work on the project of regulations has continued, with input being provided by both the Mexican Association of Pharmaceutical Research (AMIIF) and the National Association of Drug Manufacturers...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/LGufsm5774c" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>International IP</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e20133f29f8f43970b</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Review Of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act Brings New Exemptions</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/27/review-of-us-digital-millennium-copyright-act-brings-new-exemptions/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The United States Copyright Office this week completed its statutorily required review of the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Included in the ruling were three major exemptions: a renewal on the exemption for cell-phone unlocking, a new exemption for the jailbreaking of smart phones technology, and the use of visual media clips for transformative, non-commercial works. The ruling has resulted in a flood of optimism from a wide variety of nongovernmental groups. 

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/15/brazil%E2%80%99s-discussion-on-copyright-law-reform-response-to-the-digital-era/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Brazil’s Discussion On Copyright Law Reform – Response To The Digital Era?">Brazil’s Discussion On Copyright Law Reform &#8211; Response To The Digital Era?</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/07/future-of-biotechnology-and-ip-research-exemptions-ceilings-trade-secrets/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Future Of Biotechnology And IP: Research Exemptions, Ceilings, Trade Secrets">Future Of Biotechnology And IP: Research Exemptions, Ceilings, Trade Secrets</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/03/17/european-broadcasters-call-for-easier-copyright-clearance-for-online-content/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: European Broadcasters Call For Easier Copyright Clearance For Online Content">European Broadcasters Call For Easier Copyright Clearance For Online Content</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>5a4e42e4d130ea99c9d8d36bbe3ee374</author>
            <category>Access to Knowledge</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11853</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patently-O Patent L.J.: Overlapping Plaintiffs in False Marking Litigation</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/-lPOih92mBw/patently-o-patent-lj-overlapping-plaintiffs-in-false-marking-litigation.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[In the newest Patently-O Patent Law Journal publication, Robert Matthews discusses the law controlling false-marking suits when multiple plaintiffs sue for the same act of false marking. Matthews extrapolates the case-law to make two primary points: (1) a false-marking defendant...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/-lPOih92mBw/patently-o-patent-lj-overlapping-plaintiffs-in-false-marking-litigation.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>US Second Circuit Decision Opens Questions Of Transformative And Fair Use</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/27/us-second-circuit-decision-opens-questions-of-transformative-and-fair-use/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[A recent US court decision introduces entirely new questions about the balance between a transformative work and a copyright infringement. Furthermore, it places the responsibility of balancing the public interest in freedom of expression against the interests of rights holders squarely in the hands of the court, <em> writes Leslee Friedman.</em>

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/10/23/academic-us-federal-circuit-offers-patent-tech-policy-guidance-for-high-court/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: US Federal Circuit May Offer Patent, Tech Policy Guidance For High Court">US Federal Circuit May Offer Patent, Tech Policy Guidance For High Court</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/11/03/us-court-opens-door-to-challenges-of-gene-patenting/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: US Court Opens Door To Challenges Of Gene Patenting">US Court Opens Door To Challenges Of Gene Patenting</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/06/29/in-bilski-decision-us-supreme-court-adopts-tough-but-vague-test-for-business-method-patents/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: In &lt;em&gt;Bilski&lt;/em&gt; Decision, US Supreme Court Adopts Tough But Vague Test for Business Method Patents">In <em>Bilski</em> Decision, US Supreme Court Adopts Tough But Vague Test for Business Method Patents</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>def48eb90ed346c0173a29792f9ae491</author>
            <category>English</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11835</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>USPTO Provides Clarification Regarding Treatment of PTA Letters</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/U11Yb9TPxAo/uspto-provides-clarification-regarding-treatment-of-pta-letters.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Donald Zuhn -- Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office published a notice in the Federal Register (75 Fed. Reg. 42079) to clarify how the Office will treat certain letters submitted by applicants and patentees regarding the Office's patent term adjustment (PTA) determinations. In particular, the notice addresses situations in which an applicant or patentee submits a letter (other than requests for reconsideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.705) stating that the Office's PTA determination is greater than what the applicant or patentee believes is appropriate. In such situations, the notice states that the Office will no longer review...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/U11Yb9TPxAo" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Patent Office Rules &amp;amp;amp; Procedures</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485ba2735970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>WIPO Sees First Real Progress In 10 Years On Text For Protection Of Folklore</title>
            <link>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/07/26/wipo-sees-first-real-progress-on-text-for-protection-of-folklore-in-10-years-2/</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Experts meeting last week at the World Intellectual Property Organization made the first real strides in over a decade at developing a concrete rules to protect the cultural expressions and folklore of indigenous and local communities.

<h3>Related Articles:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/03/wipo-traditional-knowledge-committee-opens-with-hope-for-text-based-talks/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: WIPO Traditional Knowledge Committee Opens With Hope For Text-Based Talks">WIPO Traditional Knowledge Committee Opens With Hope For Text-Based Talks</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/05/08/wipo-traditional-knowledge-committee-agrees-to-intensify-text-based-negotiations/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: WIPO Traditional Knowledge Committee Agrees To Intensify Text-Based Negotiations">WIPO Traditional Knowledge Committee Agrees To Intensify Text-Based Negotiations</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/12/08/mismatch-on-traditional-knowledge-treaty-text-negotiating-sessions-at-wipo/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link: Mismatch On Traditional Knowledge Treaty Text, Negotiating Sessions At WIPO">Mismatch On Traditional Knowledge Treaty Text, Negotiating Sessions At WIPO</a></li>
</ul>]]></description>
            <author>505fb44fb2df070ca0f5c6fb6e20fa7a</author>
            <category>Copyright Policy</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/?p=11782</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Court Report</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/BY-F5us9Rwg/cou.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Sherri Oslick -- About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Roche Palo Alto LLC et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 1:10-cv-01988; filed July 20, 2010 in the District Court of Maryland • Plaintiffs: Roche Palo Alto LLC; Gilead Palo Alto, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc. • Defendants: Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Lupin Ltd. Roche Palo Alto LLC et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 2:10-cv-03561; filed July 14, 2010 in the District Court of New Jersey • Plaintiffs: Roche Palo Alto LLC; Gilead Palo Alto, Inc.; Gilead Sciences, Inc....<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/BY-F5us9Rwg" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Court Report</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485b17eab970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Conference &amp;amp;amp; CLE Calendar</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/aVUYJvuvja0/con-3.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[July 26-27, 2010 - Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2010: Claim Drafting &amp; Amendment Writing (Practising Law Institute) - New York, NY July 29-31, 2010 - Intensive Patent Law Training Workshop (Chisum Patent Academy) - Seattle, WA August 5-10, 2010 - 2010 ABA Annual Meeting (American Bar Association) - San Francisco, CA August 11, 2010 - "Bilski: Implications of the Supreme Court's Long-Awaited Ruling: Strategies for Prosecuting or Challenging Patent Process Claims Going Forward" (Strafford) - 1:00 - 2:30 PM (EDT) August 16-17, 2010 - Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2010: Claim Drafting &amp; Amendment Writing (Practising Law Institute) - San Francisco,...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/aVUYJvuvja0" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Conferences &amp;amp;amp; CLE's</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485b175fb970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>ACI Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Lifecycles Conference</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/-8yDH-O9mKo/aci-maximizing-pharmaceutical-patent-lifecycles-conference.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[American Conference Institute (ACI) will be holding its 11th Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Lifecycles conference on October 6-7, 2010 in New York, NY. The conference will allow attendees to: • Understand how the introduction of biosimilars has profoundly altered pharmaceutical patent life cycle strategies; • Appreciate the relationship between life cycle management, brand optimization and new product development; • See how the Federal Circuit is paving the way for Patent Reform; • Determine when and how secondary patents -- for both small and large molecules should be pursued; • Comprehend how the clear delineation between written description and enablement is influencing...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/-8yDH-O9mKo" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Conferences &amp;amp;amp; CLE's</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e2013485a83272970c</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>ACI FDA Boot Camp</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/HY9e5v37MLo/aci-fda-boot-camp.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[American Conference Institute (ACI) will be holding the next session of its FDA Boot Camp conference on September 27-28, 2010 in Boston, MA. ACI faculty will help attendees: • Master the complexities of pharmaceutical iP and the regulatory balance between brand name and generic products; • Analyze the future of follow-on biologics following recent health care reform legislation; • Recognize the pivotal role of labeling in the drug and biologics approval process; • Comprehend the structure of the FDA and the roles of the three major agency centers: CDER, CBER, and CDHR; • Understand the basics of the approval processes...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/HY9e5v37MLo" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Conferences &amp;amp;amp; CLE's</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e20133f283fa63970b</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Biotech/Pharma Docket</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentDocs/~3/HyZ425tB75k/biotechpharma-docket-3.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By James DeGiulio -- Teva and Novartis Settle Patent Dispute over Zometa Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. and Novartis Corp. have reached an agreement to settle their patent suit over a generic version of Zometa, a drug used to prevent skeletal fractures. Teva first sent Novartis two Paragraph IV notices on June 10, 2008, claiming that Novartis' U.S. Patent No. 4,939,130 was either invalid, unenforceable, or wouldn't be infringed by Teva's proposed generic. Novartis claimed that Teva had inappropriately sent the Paragraph IV notices before filing its ANDA (see "Court Report," August 3, 2008). Thus, Novartis asked the District Court to...<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentDocs/~4/HyZ425tB75k" height="1" width="1" />]]></description>
            <author>dbeb32a77fd66e37a34297fe3e2a53da</author>
            <category>Patent Litigation</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>tag:typepad.com,2003:post-6a00d83451ca1469e20133f27d232d970b</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Guest Post: USPTO Must Amend Examiner Guidelines On Bilski</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CZN7BxGCtxc/guest-post-uspto-must-amend-examiner-guidelines-on-bilski.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[by Paul Craane of Marshall Gerstein &amp; Borun In the wake of Bilski, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided unclear, and potentially incorrect, guidance to the Examining Corps regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. 101. The guidance...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CZN7BxGCtxc/guest-post-uspto-must-amend-examiner-guidelines-on-bilski.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part III of III)</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/K5OBQMZXMcc/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-iii-of-iii.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law In our previous post, we discussed some of the major findings from the Berkeley Patent Survey—the most comprehensive...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/K5OBQMZXMcc/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-iii-of-iii.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part II of III)</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/3XktYh3zNWI/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-ii-of-iii.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law In our previous post, we discussed three major findings from the Berkeley Patent Survey—the most comprehensive survey to...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/3XktYh3zNWI/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-ii-of-iii.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patenting by Entrepreneurs: The Berkeley Patent Survey (Part I of III)</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/WJDTP68moRE/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-i-of-iii-1.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Guest Post by Robert Merges and Pamela Samuelson, UC Berkeley School of Law; Ted Sichelman, University of San Diego School of Law Why do entrepreneurs and startup companies file for patents? Why not? How often do startups acquire patents from...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/WJDTP68moRE/patenting-by-entrepreneurs-the-berkeley-patent-survey-part-i-of-iii-1.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>The Business Method Patent Art Units</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/a-YMeuOQFTM/business-method-patents.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Dennis Crouch In prior posts, I noted that the USPTO is issuing patents at an all-time-high-rate. This increase is perhaps most dramatic in the art units that examine applications classified by the USPTO as &quot;business methods.&quot; This post explores...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <category>Academic Studies</category>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/a-YMeuOQFTM/business-method-patents.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Avid ID v. Crystal Import: En Banc Request Denied On Issue of Inequitable Conduct by ...</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/fReOq5eKhr8/avid-id-v-crystal-import-en-banc-request-denied-on-issue-of-inequitable-conduct-by-non-inventor-ceo.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Dennis Crouch In Avid ID, the Federal Circuit denied Avid's motion for en banc rehearing on the issue of whether inequitable conduct exists when the non-inventor, non-attorney CEO of a company applying for a patent failed to submit information...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/fReOq5eKhr8/avid-id-v-crystal-import-en-banc-request-denied-on-issue-of-inequitable-conduct-by-non-inventor-ceo.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Provisional Patent Applications</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/QQaf_E4hZ44/provisional-patent-applications.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The number of provisional patent application filings continue to rise. Well over 100,000 provisional patent applications have been filed each of the past five years. For many, provisional applications are seen as a low-cost mechanism for claiming a priority date...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/QQaf_E4hZ44/provisional-patent-applications.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Citing References to the USPTO</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/Ars7l8VEw7o/my-entry.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The chart above shows the average number of prior art references cited per patent, grouped by issue year. The chart is &quot;stacked&quot; with references cited by the examiner at the bottom and references cited by the applicant on-top.]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/Ars7l8VEw7o/my-entry.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patents that Exhibit &amp;amp;quot;Potential Vagueness and Suspect Validity&amp;amp;quot;</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/4ZCltDZCjkY/patents-that-exhibit-potential-vagueness-and-suspect-validity.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[In eBay v. MercExchange (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that an adjudged infringer should only suffer permanent injunctive relief once the traditional four-factor test of equity had been satisfied. This general priciple was recently supported by the non-patent Supreme Court...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/4ZCltDZCjkY/patents-that-exhibit-potential-vagueness-and-suspect-validity.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patently-O Bits and Bytes</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/WoHEcOxn7So/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-2.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Todays Posts: Updated Statistics: Patent Application Pendency Inequitable Conduct: Leviton Manufacturing v. Universal Security Instruments by Jason Rantanen New Contributing Author: Jason Rantanen My friend Jason Rantanen has agreed to become a contributing author on Patently-O for the next few...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/WoHEcOxn7So/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-2.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Updated Statistics: Patent Application Pendency</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/053fdAmfu_Y/updated-statistics-patent-application-pendency.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The above chart shows average application pendency for issued utility patents grouped by issue year. The chart presents three separate series that differ according to the filing-date used in the pendency calculation. The lowest data-series uses a traditional calculation that...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/053fdAmfu_Y/updated-statistics-patent-application-pendency.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Unreasonable Patent Applicant Delay and the USPTO Backlog</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/JFHqDG-m5So/unreasonable-patent-applicant-delay-and-the-uspto-backlog.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Over 1.2 million non-provisional patent applications are pending examination at the USPTO. Of those, more than 700,000 have not received even a preliminary examination. The backlog is the source of a tremendous amount of bad publicity for the USPTO. At...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/JFHqDG-m5So/unreasonable-patent-applicant-delay-and-the-uspto-backlog.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Attorney Fees and Equal Treatment for Plaintiffs and Defendants</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/D9vzSH6uXf4/attorney-fees-and-equal-treatment-for-plaintiffs-and-defendants.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Media Queue v. Netflix (Fed. Cir. 2010) This case involves a classic “improvement patent” scenario. Nick Gross was a longtime Netflix user when he came-up with the idea that the service should provide additional user notifications — such as when...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/D9vzSH6uXf4/attorney-fees-and-equal-treatment-for-plaintiffs-and-defendants.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Requests for Continued Examination Continue to Rise</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/TlbXxt6rCv0/requests-for-continued-examination-continue-to-rise.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The chart above shows Requests for Continued Examination (and the earlier CPA/R129 processes) as a percentage of the total number of non-provisional patent applications filed each year. Notes: The denominator here does not include RCE filings but does include continuations...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/TlbXxt6rCv0/requests-for-continued-examination-continue-to-rise.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Federal Circuit Extends the Scope of 102(e) &amp;amp;quot;Secret Prior Art&amp;amp;quot;</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/qVhdNC3W7NY/federal-circuit-extends-the-scope-of-102e-secret-prior-art.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[In an important case, the Federal Circuit has expanded the scope of so-called 102(e) “secret prior art.” Under the decision, a US patent or published application will be considered prior art as of the filing date of its qualifying provisional...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/qVhdNC3W7NY/federal-circuit-extends-the-scope-of-102e-secret-prior-art.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Federal Circuit Splits on Validity of Means Plus Function Claim</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/xXkUTsBqis0/federal-circuit-splits-on-validity-of-means-plus-function-claim.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Telcordia Technologies, Inc. v. Cisco Systems (Fed. Cir. 2010) Chief Judge Rader and Judge Prost sparred over the level of explanation necessary to ensure that a means plus function (MPF) claim is found definite. The Patent Act (35 U.S.C. 112...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/xXkUTsBqis0/federal-circuit-splits-on-validity-of-means-plus-function-claim.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patently-O Bits and Bytes</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/VMG80FokGZg/patently-o-bits-and-bytes.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Congressional Action on Patent Reform: Senator Leahy has posted a note on his website (link) criticizing Bilski because it “needlessly left the door open for business method patents to issue in the future, and I am concerned that it will...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/VMG80FokGZg/patently-o-bits-and-bytes.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patently-O Readership Survey</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CHclI-eIgvY/patently-o-readership-survey.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[[Four-Minute ANONYMOUS SurveyMonkey Survey] I understand that Patently-O has perhaps hosted too many surveys over the past few days. However, this survey is the most important one because it impacts my bottom line. I use the results to prove to...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CHclI-eIgvY/patently-o-readership-survey.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Prep &amp;amp;amp; Pros: Separated by a Backlog</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/cXaQAC4cNFE/the-world-continues-to-turn-even-though-several-hundred-thousand-patent-applications-are-sitting-examined-at-the-us-patent-of.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The world continues to turn even though several hundred thousand patent applications are sitting examined at the US Patent Office. During this multi-year delay, patent attorneys change jobs, receive promotions, raise billing rates, etc. One bottom line is that the...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/cXaQAC4cNFE/the-world-continues-to-turn-even-though-several-hundred-thousand-patent-applications-are-sitting-examined-at-the-us-patent-of.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Why do Applicants File So Many Requests for Continued Examination?</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/0k_1lrWKD0Q/why-do-applicants-file-so-many-requests-for-continued-examination.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Of the patents issued thus far in 2010, more than 25% carry the baggage of a file history with at least one request for continued examination (RCE) and that rate is expected to rise. RCEs are also filed in a...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/0k_1lrWKD0Q/why-do-applicants-file-so-many-requests-for-continued-examination.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Bilski v. Kappos and the Anti-State-Street-Majority</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/mvJG5yM5HXU/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The 1998 Federal Circuit decision in State Street Bank opened the door to patent protection on a wider variety of innovations — especially in the fields of business methods and software. State Street held that an invention should be patent...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/mvJG5yM5HXU/bilski-v-kappos-and-the-anti-state-street-majority.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Bilski v. Kappos</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/wX-JLdbPplc/bilski-v-kappos-business-methods-out-software-still-patentable.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Although Bilski's claims were held unpatentably abstract, the Supreme Court has re-affirmed that the door to patent eligibility should remain broad and open. Bilski v. Kappos (Supreme Court 2010)(08-964) The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos....]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/wX-JLdbPplc/bilski-v-kappos-business-methods-out-software-still-patentable.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>BPAI Review of Obviousness Rejections</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/Z3ucuHkiLY8/bpai-review-of-obviousness-rejections.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Ex parte Quist (BPAI 2010) (precedential opinion) In only its second precedential opinion of 2010, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has further developed its procedures for its review of obviousness rejections and consideration of evidence of nonobviousness....]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/Z3ucuHkiLY8/bpai-review-of-obviousness-rejections.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Employee and Officer Liability for Inducing Infringement</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/6Co0H3Kp1GU/employee-and-officer-liability-for-inducing-infringement.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[By Jason Rantanen, Visiting Scholar at UC Hastings School of Law Wordtech Systems, Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2010) In most patent cases, companies are the ones sued as alleged infringers. But sometimes individuals—particularly corporate officers—are also...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/6Co0H3Kp1GU/employee-and-officer-liability-for-inducing-infringement.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Business Method Patents: Insurance Companies Fighting over Patented Annuity Plans</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/8pJL8k_qKvE/business-method-patents-insurance-companies-fighting-over-patented-annuity-plans.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Lincoln National Life Insurance Co. v. Transamerica Life Insurance Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010) It is not unusual to see insurance companies in litigation. What is unusual here is that the context is patent infringement. Lincoln is pursuing Transamerica and others...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/8pJL8k_qKvE/business-method-patents-insurance-companies-fighting-over-patented-annuity-plans.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patently-O Bits and Bytes</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/L641qkQgqFo/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-1.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[Thank you Sponsors: The Patently-O Home Page continues with the exclusive sponsorship of the law firm of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert &amp; Berghoff LLP. Patently-O Jobs has a new sponsor: Patent Attorney Allen Black. Black joins long-time job-board sponsor Franklin Pierce...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/L641qkQgqFo/patently-o-bits-and-bytes-1.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Patent Prosecution Highway</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/YD5nDA2oTYI/patent-prosecution-highway.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[The USPTO is quickly moving forward with its Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) and applicants may want to consider whether it is time to jump aboard. The PPH is based on a series of bi-lateral (and multi-lateral) agreements between the various...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/YD5nDA2oTYI/patent-prosecution-highway.html</guid>
        </item><item>
            <title>Bilski v. Kappos</title>
            <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CkC6vGVVJms/bilski-v-kappos.html</link>
            <description><![CDATA[There is a good chance that the Supreme Court will issue a decision in Bilski v. Kappos later this morning. Supreme Court specialist Tom Goldstein writes hopefully: “The longest-outstanding case is Bilski, the business methods patent case. It has likely...]]></description>
            <author>6d450fea45f4b8aeb9d76360b4babc41</author>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 10 12:34:33 +0000</pubDate>
            <guid>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/PatentlyObviousPatentLawBlog/~3/CkC6vGVVJms/bilski-v-kappos.html</guid>
        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>
