<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<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:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law &#187; IP News</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/category/news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:15:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>The Right of Publicity: A Doctrine Gone Wild?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/the-right-of-publicity-a-doctrine-gone-wild/id=9647/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/the-right-of-publicity-a-doctrine-gone-wild/id=9647/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Beckerman-Rodau</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right of publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[andrew beckerman-rodau]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[etrade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lindsay lohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[parody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent dispute involving Lindsay Lohan and ETrade provides an opportunity for critically examining the right of publicity. One defense that ETrade could raise would be parody since it is common practice – and a strongly protected free speech right – to make fun of people.  Nevertheless, courts have distinguished between simply making fun of someone and making fun of someone in order to sell a product.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/the-right-of-publicity-a-doctrine-gone-wild/id=9647/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UIA Letter to Congress on Patent Reform, Kappos &amp; First to Invent</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/uia-letter-to-congress-on-patent-reform-kappos-first-to-invent/id=9632/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/uia-letter-to-congress-on-patent-reform-kappos-first-to-invent/id=9632/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressman conyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to invent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interference proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patrick raymond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator leahy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united inventors association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The UIA sent a letter to Senator Leahy and Congressman John Conyers.  The UIA hopes what is most newsworthy about the letter is their appreciation of Kappos’ outreach to the independent inventor community.  First to file may dominate the news though.  Did you know that the mean cost of an interference through the completion of the preliminary motions phase is a whopping $417,130.  The mean total cost of the entire interference is  $656,306. What independent inventors can afford that?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/11/uia-letter-to-congress-on-patent-reform-kappos-first-to-invent/id=9632/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Analyzing Patent Reform Chances and First to File Provisions</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/analyzing-patent-reform-chances-and-first-to-file-provisions/id=9607/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/analyzing-patent-reform-chances-and-first-to-file-provisions/id=9607/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conception]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to invent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grace period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator hatch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator kyl]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent reform could be of sufficiently low political importance that Democrats and Republicans can get something done.  If health care dies the Democrats will need to pass something desperately, perhaps many things, to show they actually accomplished something.  Therefore, if health care dies I predict patent reform passes.  If health care passes I predict patent reform will die, as the Congress and government slip into heightened posturing in advance of the 2010 elections.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/analyzing-patent-reform-chances-and-first-to-file-provisions/id=9607/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intellectual Property Today Ranks Top Patent Law Firms for 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/09/iptoday-ranks-top-patent-law-firms/id=9588/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/09/iptoday-ranks-top-patent-law-firms/id=9588/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent law firms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top patent law firms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Intellectual Property Today has once again come out with its much anticipated list of the top patent law firms.  At the top of the list was Oblon Spivak, McClelland, Maier &#038; Neustadt, LLP, with 4043 utility patents, 72 design patents, which represents an increase of 6.5% in 2009 over 2008. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/09/iptoday-ranks-top-patent-law-firms/id=9588/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Discussion of SEB v. Montgomery Ward—Developments in the Law of Inducement and Direct Infringement</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/developments-in-the-law-of-inducement-and-direct-infringement/id=9561/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/developments-in-the-law-of-inducement-and-direct-infringement/id=9561/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Kasdan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[35 USC 271]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michael kasdan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9561</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward &#38; Co., Inc. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2010) (“SEB”) addresses a defendant’s liability for inducement as well as for direct infringement.  It is significant in that it may expand the scope of infringement liability, particularly for foreign defendants, in multiple respects.  What follows [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/developments-in-the-law-of-inducement-and-direct-infringement/id=9561/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Poniard Pharmaceuticals: Positive Phase 2 News and Patent Portfolio Could Make it a Good Buy</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/poniard-pharmaceuticals-positive-phase-2-news-and-patent-portfolio-could-make-it-a-good-buy/id=9548/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/poniard-pharmaceuticals-positive-phase-2-news-and-patent-portfolio-could-make-it-a-good-buy/id=9548/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 22:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stock Analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colorectal cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent portfolio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phase 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picoplatin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poniard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poniard pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prostate cancer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Now here is what really caught my attention about PARD, on November 13, 2009 the stock was trading at $7.58, and on Monday, November 16, 2009 it dropped like a rock to $1.83, where it has largely stayed in a trading range plus or minus since.  So what happened?  On November 16, 2009, PARD announced what they called a positive Phase 3 study of picoplatin for use to treat small cell lung cancer patients.  Those treated with picoplatin had an 11% reduction in the risk of death compared to patients treated with current best practices, which was not a positive enough result to be statistically significant.  As is often the case with companies like this in the biotech sector, bad news is devastating to a stock.  It is also true that stocks in the biotech sector also do quite well on good news.  Back in March 2009, PARD was trading at about $1.70 to $1.80 before running up to a high of $9.14.  So could this positive Phase 2 news of picoplatin and colorectal cancer be the precursor to another run up?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/07/poniard-pharmaceuticals-positive-phase-2-news-and-patent-portfolio-could-make-it-a-good-buy/id=9548/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Debunking the Myth that Patents Create a Monopoly</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/06/debunking-the-myth-that-patents-create-a-monopoly/id=9538/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/06/debunking-the-myth-that-patents-create-a-monopoly/id=9538/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:39:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Information for Inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chief judge markey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nonprovisional patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provisional patent application]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9538</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many inventors operate under the misunderstanding that getting a patent is like owning Boardwalk and Park Place in the popular board game "Monopoly." Unfortunately, turning a patent grant into cash is much more complicated than simply placing hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place.  Those who are against patents always seem to argue that a patent is a monopoly, or at least use those terms interchangeably.  Don't be fooled into thinking that a patent is a monopoly.  Simply obtaining a patent will not result in the the arrival a money truck to your doorstep.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/06/debunking-the-myth-that-patents-create-a-monopoly/id=9538/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hello Doctor, Can You Recommend a Good Doctor?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/05/hello-doctor-can-you-recommend-a-good-doctor/id=9423/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/05/hello-doctor-can-you-recommend-a-good-doctor/id=9423/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:20:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Renee C. Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renee Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipwatchdog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipwatchdog.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We do understand that the decision who to hire as your attorney is a very personal one, and you should make the selection carefully.  At the same time it is at least a little insulting for individuals to ask us to recommend a patent attorney for them, as if they have already ruled out our services out of hand.  It also is a big turn-off when it is clear that those who call or e-mail want us to read to them what we have written on our website.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/05/hello-doctor-can-you-recommend-a-good-doctor/id=9423/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apple Sues HTC on iPhone Patents, But Google is the Real Target</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/apple-sues-htc-on-iphone-patents-but-google-is-the-real-target/id=9484/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/apple-sues-htc-on-iphone-patents-but-google-is-the-real-target/id=9484/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district of delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high tech computer corp.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[htc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NeXT Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[steve jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5455599]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5481721]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5519867]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5566337]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5848105]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5915131]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5920726]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5929852]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5946647]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5969705]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 6275983]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 6343263]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 6424354]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7362331]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7383453]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7469381]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7479949]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7633076]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7657849]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. RE 39486]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 2, 2010, Apple filed two lawsuits against High Tech Computer Corp. (aka HTC Corp.), HTC (B.V.I.) Corp, HTC America, Inc. and Exeda, Inc in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, and a concurrent ITC proceeding.  Speculation has already started to rise, not surprisingly, that the real target of Apple is none other than Google, who is the creator of the Android operating system that seems to be the foundation of the allegedly infringing technologies. Given that Apple has sold over 40 million iPhones worldwide, if they do believe there is infringement they can hardly let Google muscle in on this lucrative technology turf. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/apple-sues-htc-on-iphone-patents-but-google-is-the-real-target/id=9484/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TiVo Stock Surges Over 50% on Patent Decision in EchoStar Case</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/tivo-stock-surges-over-50-on-patent-decision-in-echostar-case/id=9496/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/tivo-stock-surges-over-50-on-patent-decision-in-echostar-case/id=9496/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dish network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dvr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[echostar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge lourie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge mayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tivo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 6233389]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TiVo, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO), owner of U.S. Patent 6,233,389, titled “Multimedia Time Warping System,” was a big winner today at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when the CAFC handed down its decision in Tivo, Inc. v. EchoStar Corp.  A majority of the 3 judge panel hearing the case agreed with the district court and ratified the contempt order against EchoStar (NASDAQ: SATS) and Dish Network (NASDAQ: DISH).  On news of the Federal Circuit ruling TiVo stock immediately surged ahead well over $5, up over 50%. Within less than 1 hour TiVo stock when from trading just over $10 a share, trading at $10.31 at 11:06 am EST, to trading at $16.07 at 11:42 am EST.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/04/tivo-stock-surges-over-50-on-patent-decision-in-echostar-case/id=9496/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Law Fun &amp; Lessons: What Dilbert Teaches About Inventing</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/patent-law-fun-lessons-what-dilbert-teaches-about-inventing/id=9465/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/patent-law-fun-lessons-what-dilbert-teaches-about-inventing/id=9465/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:14:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Educational Information for Inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fun Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dilbert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to invent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inventions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott adams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you can see from the first cartoon in the series, the creator of a project has left the company and his unfinished project is being passed on to the hapless Dilbert.  Scott Adams, through Dilbert, teaches us not only that no one should ever trust Dilbert, but also about the importance of documenting your invention.  I then take this opportunity to also opinion about the impending first to invent changes to US patent laws.  What fun!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/patent-law-fun-lessons-what-dilbert-teaches-about-inventing/id=9465/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Upcoming Events from the Social Network Calendar</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/upcoming-events-from-the-social-network-calendar/id=9451/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/upcoming-events-from-the-social-network-calendar/id=9451/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[calendar of events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipwatchdog social network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social neworking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[upcoming events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9451</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Below is the current list of events posted on the IPWatchdog Social Network.  Joining is free, and you can add your industry events for free as well.  The plan is to periodically post an upcoming list of events on the IPWatchdog.com blog taken from the current list over on the IPWatchdog Social Network.  So if you have a program at a law school, an inventor group meeting, CLE or expo join the group and let everyone know about your event.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/upcoming-events-from-the-social-network-calendar/id=9451/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Practising Law Institute Helping Out Attorneys in Down Economy</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/practising-law-institute-helping-out-attorneys-in-down-economy/id=9414/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/practising-law-institute-helping-out-attorneys-in-down-economy/id=9414/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practising law institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims and continuation rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pli]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pli scholarship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro bono]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scholarship]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[PLI is offering scholarships for unemployed attorneys and they are also hosting Winning Strategies for Managing Your Career 2010 for the special price of $25.  From time to time PLI also gives away ethics credits for free, and pro bono training.  In reality, an announcement of scholarships and $25 programs hardly comes from the shameless commerce division, and for that reason I hope that you will consider helping spread the word.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/practising-law-institute-helping-out-attorneys-in-down-economy/id=9414/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Grants En Banc Review of BPAI to District Court Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/cafc-grants-en-banc-review-of-bpai-to-district-court-appeal/id=9185/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/cafc-grants-en-banc-review-of-bpai-to-district-court-appeal/id=9185/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:03:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[35 USC 145]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative procedures act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bpai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dc district court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[en banc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge dyk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge michel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9185</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On February 17, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order in Hyatt v. Kappos vacating the previous decision issued by a 3 judge panel on August 11, 2009, when the case was then styled Hyatt v. Doll. Hyatt's petition for rehearing was denied.  After polling the judges of the Federal Circuit, however, rehearing en banc was granted on whether 35 USC 145 requires de novo review and the submission of new evidence. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/cafc-grants-en-banc-review-of-bpai-to-district-court-appeal/id=9185/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inc.com&#8217;s Bad Advice on Finding a Good Patent Lawyer</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/inc-coms-bad-advice-on-finding-a-good-patent-lawyer/id=9387/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/inc-coms-bad-advice-on-finding-a-good-patent-lawyer/id=9387/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:10:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Educational Information for Inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad advice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inc.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inventor groups]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent agent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent lawyer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week Inc.com published an article titled How to Find a Good Patent Lawyer.  Unfortunately, if you follow this advice you are likely to do exactly the opposite.  If you can believe it, Inc.com suggests that you not ask business associates or others for reliable recommendations, which goes completely against the well established best practices in the industry.  The article also suggests that if you have an Internet business you might want to find a patent attorney who also specializes in First Amendment law, almost as if those types of lawyers readily exist, which they don't.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/01/inc-coms-bad-advice-on-finding-a-good-patent-lawyer/id=9387/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What a Soon to be Patent Agent Learned from Googling Himself</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/28/what-a-soon-to-be-patent-agent-learned-from-googling-himself/id=9376/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/28/what-a-soon-to-be-patent-agent-learned-from-googling-himself/id=9376/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:59:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Walsh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Bar Exam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new york times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent agent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simple patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Patrick Walsh" was a little too broad; I limited it to "Patrick Walsh patent," to see if anything of interest popped up more specific to my career as a professional patent searcher. What I found was this gem of early 1900's journalism from the New York Times: Dated May 14th, 1909.  If you were so unlucky as to fall victim to the former Walsh Bros. &#038; Company, you were only down $4, Even by 1909 standards, $4 isn't not the end of the world.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/28/what-a-soon-to-be-patent-agent-learned-from-googling-himself/id=9376/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook Gets US Patent on Social Network News Feeds</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/facebook-social-network-news-feed-patent/id=9317/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/facebook-social-network-news-feed-patent/id=9317/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:59:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news feed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 7669123]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week, on February 23, 2010, Facebook was granted US Patent No. 7,669,123, which covers a patent on a method for dynamically providing a news feed about a user of a social network. While this may have been new to social networking sites in December 2005 through August 2006, automatically updating news feeds were hardly new even then.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/facebook-social-network-news-feed-patent/id=9317/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO’s New Examiner Count System Go Into Effect</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/uspto%e2%80%99s-new-examiner-count-system-go-into-effect/id=9310/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/uspto%e2%80%99s-new-examiner-count-system-go-into-effect/id=9310/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:43:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examiner count system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feedback channel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent examiners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[popa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new count system seems to place emphasis on complete and thorough initial examination, and even provides incentive for examiners to issue patent applications early in the process. Examiners are also given up to 1 hour of non-examination time to initiate an interview with the applicant or the applicant's representative, and to write up an interview summary. Given that patent examiners will receive more credit under the new count system for disposals without need for a Final Rejection, it seems reasonable to anticipate that when there is allowable subject matter present in an application at least some examiners will find it in their own best interest to work with an applicant to get a patent issued quickly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/26/uspto%e2%80%99s-new-examiner-count-system-go-into-effect/id=9310/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Fanciful False Marking Fiction By a Cottage Industrialist</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/a-fanciful-false-marking-fiction-by-a-cottage-industrialist/id=9299/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/a-fanciful-false-marking-fiction-by-a-cottage-industrialist/id=9299/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:04:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sue D. Nym</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[docket report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false marking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent marking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sue d. nym]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The day starts out quiet enough. I wake up and scoop my contacts out of the Clear Care® contact lens solution they’re swimming in. Blinking rapidly to settle my contacts, I focus on some tiny numbers printed on the contact solution box. Patent numbers. I’ve been using the solution for years and wonder how old the patents must be. I do a quick Google search and discover that the patents have expired. Strange that expired patents would be printed on the box...  My 3 year old interrupts my thoughts as she walks up to me still rubbing her eyes, complaining that her Goodnite’s® Sleep Shorts are soggy. Knowing that absorbent products containing hydrogels with ability to swell against pressure don’t change themselves, I quickly get her some dry pants. Doing so, I check the box and sure enough, more expired patent numbers.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/a-fanciful-false-marking-fiction-by-a-cottage-industrialist/id=9299/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kappos Trying to Sell Patent Reform to Independent Inventors</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/24/kappos-trying-to-sell-patent-reform-to-independent-inventors/id=9285/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/24/kappos-trying-to-sell-patent-reform-to-independent-inventors/id=9285/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:40:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to invent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent inventor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post grant review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provisional patent applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united inventors association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9285</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Director Kappos is making his case for patent reform by making 4 key points.  First, patent reform would lower patent office fees for independent inventors and presumably small businesses by establishing a new class --- micro entities.  Second, the fee setting authority in the patent reform legislation will allow for the USPTO to generate more revenue, thereby improving IT systems and hiring more patent examiners, while not costing micro entities more in the way of fees.  Third, post grant review of patents will be condensed into a 12 month period and the threshold for initiating review will be raised, which should result in at settling effect not unlike the quieting of title in the real property scenario.  Finally, the US will not become a pure first to file system, but rather into a first inventor to file system, which will have little or no effect on independent inventors and small businesses.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/24/kappos-trying-to-sell-patent-reform-to-independent-inventors/id=9285/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
