<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/28/divisional-of-divisional-reaches-safe-harbor-of-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-121/id=8624/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/28/divisional-of-divisional-reaches-safe-harbor-of-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-121/id=8624/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JOLT Digest » Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/28/divisional-of-divisional-reaches-safe-harbor-of-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-121/id=8624/#comment-10867</link>
		<dc:creator>JOLT Digest » Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8624#comment-10867</guid>
		<description>
[...] gives a more detailed analysis of the case as well as a short summary of the dissenting opinion. IPWatchdog talks about the practical nature of the decision and criticizes the dissent’s narrow [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] gives a more detailed analysis of the case as well as a short summary of the dissenting opinion. IPWatchdog talks about the practical nature of the decision and criticizes the dissent’s narrow [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121 &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/01/28/divisional-of-divisional-reaches-safe-harbor-of-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-121/id=8624/#comment-10856</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121 &#124; IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 03:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8624#comment-10856</guid>
		<description>
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog, TWT INVENTIONS and TWEET INVENTIONS, Bradley Levinson. Bradley Levinson said: Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 USC § 121: IPWatchdog.com The majority of the panel agreed, ack... http://bit.ly/dCdBbU [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog, TWT INVENTIONS and TWEET INVENTIONS, Bradley Levinson. Bradley Levinson said: Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 USC § 121: IPWatchdog.com The majority of the panel agreed, ack&#8230; <a href="http://bit.ly/dCdBbU" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/dCdBbU</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

