<?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, 19 Mar 2010 19:48:29 +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 Importance of Using Social Networking for Business; Part I &#8211; Facebook</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/19/the-importance-of-using-social-networking-for-business-part-i-facebook/id=9748/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/19/the-importance-of-using-social-networking-for-business-part-i-facebook/id=9748/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:40:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Renee C. Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Brand Building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renee Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[linkedin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9748</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn.  These are a few of the more popular Social Networking sites that you have probably already heard of and may already be using.  But Social Networking platforms such as these are not just for playing online social games, taking quizzes, sending virtual gifts or reconnecting with friends and family.  In fact Social [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/19/the-importance-of-using-social-networking-for-business-part-i-facebook/id=9748/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Reform Should Preserve a Real 1 Year Grace Period</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/18/patent-reform-should-preserve-a-real-1-year-grace-period/id=9755/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/18/patent-reform-should-preserve-a-real-1-year-grace-period/id=9755/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:36:36 +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[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[102]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grace period]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interference proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[novelty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is absolutely no reason why we cannot change from a first to invent system to a first inventor to file system that would still retain a real and substantial grace period and still retain the right for patent applicants to swear behind references to demonstrate an earlier date of invention, at least with respect to pieces of prior art that are not the progeny of earlier filed patent applications.  So the currently proposed revisions to 102 need to be amended prior to passage of S. 515. It should define the term "disclosure," do away with "otherwise available" under proposed 102(a) and retain the grace period relative to third party actions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/18/patent-reform-should-preserve-a-real-1-year-grace-period/id=9755/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PLI Patent Bar Review Spring/Summer Tour 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/16/pli-patent-bar-review-springsummer-tour-2010/id=8750/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/16/pli-patent-bar-review-springsummer-tour-2010/id=8750/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:49:02 +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 Bar Exam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practising law institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mark dighton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent bar examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent bar review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pli]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=8750</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is about that time of the year where our calendar really starts to heat up.  This course, which happens every year during law school spring break, finds us in Chicago during St. Patrick's Day festivities and the start of the NCAA College Basketball tournament.  Once our Spring school tour is over then we will be back on the road teaching courses in New York City (May), Southern CA (June), Boston (July), Chicago (August), New York City (September) and San Francisco (November).  We are indeed heading into our busy season!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/16/pli-patent-bar-review-springsummer-tour-2010/id=8750/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BIO Gearing Up for Big Spring 2010, Headlined by Kappos</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/bio-gearing-up-for-big-spring-2010-headlined-by-kappos/id=9716/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/bio-gearing-up-for-big-spring-2010-headlined-by-kappos/id=9716/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:49:50 +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[bio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BIO International Convention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biobased]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biofuels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biologics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[follow on biologics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Greenwood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jim greenwood]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The  Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has just announced that David Kappos, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, will be a featured speaker at the Intellectual Property Super Session taking place during the 2010 BIO International Convention. The May 3 event, entitled “Leveraging IP to Spur Global Biotechnology Innovation, Investment and Jobs,” will examine the role that intellectual property systems play in attracting biotech investment and how some countries are successfully leveraging their patent policies to foster economic growth.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/bio-gearing-up-for-big-spring-2010-headlined-by-kappos/id=9716/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If the Shoe Fits: Analyzing Lohan and Sgt. Sarver Right of Publicity</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:53:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert C. Cumbow</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[academy award]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[etrade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lindsay lohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[milkaholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert cumbow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sgt. sarver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the hurt locker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9718</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The buzz continues about Lindsay Lohan’s suit against E*TRADE over its use of the name “Lindsay” to identify a “milkaholic” character in the latest in its ongoing series of talking-babies commercials.  Not coincidentally, shortly before the Academy Awards broadcast—Army Sergeant Jeffrey S. Sarver brought suit in the District of New Jersey, alleging that the lead character of the film The Hurt Locker, which subsequently won the Best Picture Oscar, was a depiction of him, for which he was owed compensation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/15/if-the-shoe-fits-right-of-publicity/id=9718/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Settling with Civility in Patent Litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/14/settling-with-civility-in-patent-litigation/id=9703/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/14/settling-with-civility-in-patent-litigation/id=9703/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:48:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Amy Towell</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[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[docke report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[docket navigator]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9703</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Henryk Oleksy v. General Electric Company, et al (ILND 1-06-cv-01245), a settlement conference occurred recently. Quite a normal activity in patent litigation cases. But something about this particular entry caught our eye. Patent litigators were complimented for being civil by the district court. This is not something you typically see, but when there are these types of “feel good” moments they are worthy of being noted.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/14/settling-with-civility-in-patent-litigation/id=9703/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Importance of Having A Web Presence</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/the-importance-of-having-a-web-presence/id=9511/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/the-importance-of-having-a-web-presence/id=9511/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:00:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Renee C. Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renee Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[domain names]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[web hosting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[website]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A website is a fairly inexpensive business tool that serves a purpose for both the business and its audience.  Whether you are a small business owner, inventor, entrepreneur, artist, author, musician, band, doctor or veterinary hospital you need a website. Increasingly people are turning to the Internet to find information, and if you don’t have a presence on the Internet you will not only be making it more difficult for people to find you, but you will miss out on so many opportunities for new business.  If you want to make a good first impression a website is a great place to start!]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/13/the-importance-of-having-a-web-presence/id=9511/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Darby &amp; Darby Dissolving after 115 Years in Business</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/darby-darby-dissolving-after-115-years-in-business/id=9669/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/darby-darby-dissolving-after-115-years-in-business/id=9669/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:02:40 +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[Law Firms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[darby and darby]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dissolving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip boutique]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent law firms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier today Darby &#038; Darby, one of the oldest intellectual property boutique firms in the United States, announced that they are dissolving. The announcement, which seems to have come without much warning, confirms rumors that started swirling last night that an abrupt end was near for the firm that has been in business since 1895. Darby &#038; Darby has offices in New York, Seattle, Washington DC, Palm Beach Gardens and Frankfort. Details remain murky, and no one seems to know exactly when the doors will be shuttered.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/darby-darby-dissolving-after-115-years-in-business/id=9669/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Show Me the IP! Venture Capital Success Based on Patents</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/venture-capital-success-based-on-patents/id=9657/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/venture-capital-success-based-on-patents/id=9657/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:09:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dale halling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iam magazine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ian clarke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipvision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joff wild]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[venture capital]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9657</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier today Dale Halling, of Halling IP and State of Innovation Blog, brought to my attention an article on the IAM Magazine Blog from a few weeks ago.  Joff Wild of IAM blogged about a study conducted by IPVision, Inc., which focused on analyzing the intellectual property positions of over 9,000 US venture capital [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/12/venture-capital-success-based-on-patents/id=9657/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>3</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>13</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>11</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[Law Firms]]></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>16</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>3</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>7</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>
	</channel>
</rss>
