<?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; Patent Fools&trade;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/category/patent-blog/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:40:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 Sanctions</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/20/aclu-should-be-hit-with-rule-11-sanctions/id=7351/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/20/aclu-should-be-hit-with-rule-11-sanctions/id=7351/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dale B. Halling</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dale B. Halling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aclu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourteenth amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[myriad genetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule 11]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 SanctionsIn the ACLU v. Myriad case, the ACLU has alleged that the patents involved in the case cover genes found in nature.  This statement is so patently (pun intended) false, that the ACLU either purposely deceived the court or is guilty of gross negligence about the facts [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/03/fired-up-challenging-the-constitutionality-of-the-patent-act/id=7144/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Fired Up: Challenging the Constitutionality of the Patent Act'>Fired Up: Challenging the Constitutionality of the Patent Act</a><small>The Plaintiffs allege that because human genes should not be patented.  Hardly something that anyone can argue.  The only trouble is that this is not what the US Patent Office allows, and it is not what Myriad Genetics has been granted a patent on.  Nevertheless, the frivolous ACLU lawsuit that seeks to use the US [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/14/aclu-files-frivolous-lawsuit-challenging-patents/id=3417/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: ACLU Files Frivolous Lawsuit Challenging Patents'>ACLU Files Frivolous Lawsuit Challenging Patents</a><small>The ACLU should be sanctioned for its frivolous lawsuit challenging gene patents, which was filed Tuesday in the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.  This lawsuit is nothing more than grandstanding, it presents frivolous arguments and outright lies.  The ACLU would have you believe that the patents cover naturally [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/24/san-francisco-chronicle-thinks-gravity-is-an-idea/id=3733/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: San Francisco Chronicle Thinks Gravity is an Idea'>San Francisco Chronicle Thinks Gravity is an Idea</a><small>There are a lot of crazies coming out of the woodwork with respect to the ACLU&#8217;s efforts to have the patent laws of the United States declared unconstitutional.  Perhaps you have heard, the ALCU is standing up for breast cancer patients because Myriad Genetics has patented genes.  How awful really.  Not that Myriad has patented [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/20/aclu-should-be-hit-with-rule-11-sanctions/id=7351/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Method for Getting an Interview with David Kappos</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:35:45 +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[Interviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aba journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interview]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invent and patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[terry carter]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7336</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Method for Getting an Interview with David KapposLast week I chatted via phone with Terry Carter, a journalist working on a story for publication in the ABA Journal.  We talked about a number of different patent topics, and I am certainly looking forward to reading his article when it appears.  Later on in the week [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/08/david-kappos-confirmed-as-uspto-director/id=4813/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: David Kappos Confirmed as USPTO Director'>David Kappos Confirmed as USPTO Director</a><small>With no notice to the public, and after the Senate was reported to have adjourned for their August recess, on Friday, August 7, 2009, David Kappos was confirmed as Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. While I applaud the quick action by the Senate to [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/08/06/kappos-nomination-unanimously-forwarded-to-full-senate/id=4795/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Kappos Nomination Unanimously Forwarded to Full Senate'>Kappos Nomination Unanimously Forwarded to Full Senate</a><small>Earlier today the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the nomination of David Kappos, former Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for IBM, to be Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, a job that also comes with the title of Director of the Patent and Trademark Office.  The vote in the Judiciary Committee was unanimous, [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/29/david-kappos-shines-at-senate-confirmation-hearing/id=4741/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: David Kappos Shines at Senate Confirmation Hearing'>David Kappos Shines at Senate Confirmation Hearing</a><small>To start the confirmation proceedings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced David Kappos this morning with a lengthy and impressive recitation of Kappos&#8217; credentials and experience.  He started out with IBM as an engineer after graduating with highest honors from the University of California Davis with a degree in electrical and [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/19/method-for-getting-an-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7336/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Call to Action: Amici Briefs in ACLU Gene Patent Challenge</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/18/call-to-action-amici-briefs-in-aclu-gene-patent-challenge/id=7326/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/18/call-to-action-amici-briefs-in-aclu-gene-patent-challenge/id=7326/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:16:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></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 Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[call to action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fourteenth amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glaxosmithkline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pastor Martin Niemöller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern district of new york]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tafas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Call to Action: Amici Briefs in ACLU Gene Patent ChallengeRecently I received an e-mail with a link alerting me to something posted on the 271 blog relating to Bilski.  The video (viewable on the 271 blog) is taken from a movie about World War II that focuses at least in part on Adolph Hitler. [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/20/aclu-should-be-hit-with-rule-11-sanctions/id=7351/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 Sanctions'>ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 Sanctions</a><small>In the ACLU v. Myriad case, the ACLU has alleged that the patents involved in the case cover genes found in nature. This statement is so patently (pun intended) false, that the ACLU either purposely deceived the court or is guilty of gross negligence about the facts plead in the case. As Gene [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/09/29/thank-you-david-kappos-uspto-extends-comments/id=6416/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Thank You David Kappos! USPTO Extends Comments'>Thank You David Kappos! USPTO Extends Comments</a><small>Last week I wrote an article titled Inauspicious Start to Greater USPTO Transparency, in which I wrote about how disappointed I was that some things never seem to change at the Patent Office.  I was referring to the fact that a Federal Register Notice had been published on September 17, 2009, and gave until September [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/13/the-case-against-gene-patents/id=4102/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Case Against Gene Patents'>The Case Against Gene Patents</a><small>I favor innovation, and am interested in ensuring that science and technology work hand in hand to both better our standard of living, and enrich those who create new and useful works. But it is not necessarily true that current intellectual property laws always accomplish this. Nor is it so that everything under [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/18/call-to-action-amici-briefs-in-aclu-gene-patent-challenge/id=7326/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obviously Non-obvious and Patentable Inventions Part I</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/17/obviously-non-obvious-and-patentable-inventions-part-i/id=7319/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/17/obviously-non-obvious-and-patentable-inventions-part-i/id=7319/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fun Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college football playoff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fbs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[football bowl subdivision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksr v. teleflex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obvious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7319</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obviously Non-obvious and Patentable Inventions Part IOnce again I find myself traveling for PLI, this time I am in an airplane heading for Oakland, California, with the final destination of San Francisco, California via taxi.  This will be the last live location for the PLI Patent Bar Review Course for 2009.  John White [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/24/another-ksr-retrospective/id=4674/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Another KSR Retrospective'>Another KSR Retrospective</a><small>On that fateful day some 27 months ago, April 30, 2007 to be precise, the United States Supreme Court decided that the well established and functional bright line rule for obviousness was too rigid.  No longer must there be a teaching, motiviation or suggestion to render an invention unpatentable for obviousness reasons.  No in this [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/19/machine-might-not-be-patentable-subject-matter/id=1609/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Machine Might Not be Patentable Subject Matter'>Machine Might Not be Patentable Subject Matter</a><small>Last week I was in Arlington, Virginia, teaching the PLI Patent Bar Review Course, so I was a bit out of touch with what was happening in the patent world as I tried to help a number of would-be patent attorneys and agents get through the PLI immersion course. Like clockwork, during this time out [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/06/20/obscure-patent-ksr/id=4193/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Obscure Patents: KSR Does Not Mean Much'>Obscure Patents: KSR Does Not Mean Much</a><small>So much has been made about the United States Supreme Court's decision in KSR v. Teleflex, which happened just over 2 years ago. Occasionally I like to take a look at how the Patent Office is handling KSR. Admittedly, this is not a scientific study, and is more aimed at having fun and perhaps also explaining so we never forget just how absurd the Supreme Court's decision in KSR actually was. Those familiar with the KSR decision and history will recall that the non-patent experts on the Supreme Court, including Justice Antonin Scalia who openly admitted he didn't understand patent...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/17/obviously-non-obvious-and-patentable-inventions-part-i/id=7319/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Climate Deal in Copenhagen Good for Green Patent Rights</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/15/no-climate-deal-in-copenhagen-good-for-green-patent-rights/id=7298/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/15/no-climate-deal-in-copenhagen-good-for-green-patent-rights/id=7298/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:20:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Anti-patent Nonsense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arvid pasto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen climate conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david kappos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gary locke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[green patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united nations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7298</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[No Climate Deal in Copenhagen Good for Green Patent RightsThe Wall Street Journal is reporting good news for patent owners, in particular those holding patents on green technologies.  President Obama, who is currently attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Shanghai, China, along with other world leaders announced that they no longer have ambitions [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/28/congress-urges-strong-ip-stance-in-un-climate-change-talks/id=6957/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Congress Urges Strong IP Stance in UN Climate Change Talks'>Congress Urges Strong IP Stance in UN Climate Change Talks</a><small>As first reported by Bartholomew Sullivan of The Commercial Appeal, last week, on October 22, 2009, thirty-four members of Congress wrote a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urging her to steadfastly support strong intellectual property rights and not to given in to international demands that would weaken intellectual property rights, particularly patent rights. [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/06/secretary-locke-promises-strongest-ip-protection-in-the-world/id=7182/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Secretary Locke Promises Strongest IP Protection in the World'>Secretary Locke Promises Strongest IP Protection in the World</a><small>I am just getting back from two days at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, having attended the 14th Annual Inventors Conference.  There is much to report, and much to write about, and I will continue to digest, analyze and write about what I saw and my impressions in the days to come.  It [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/08/help-arrives-nick-godici-returns-to-patent-office/id=4520/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Help Arrives! Nick Godici Returns to Patent Office'>Help Arrives! Nick Godici Returns to Patent Office</a><small>U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke yesterday announced the appointment of former USPTO official and long-time patent professional Nicholas P. Godici as a special advisor to the USPTO.  On announcing the return of Godici, Secretary Locke said: &#8220;I’m counting on Nick to use his decades of experience to help us strengthen the management of the USPTO [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/15/no-climate-deal-in-copenhagen-good-for-green-patent-rights/id=7298/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JUST IN: Federal Circuit Denies Vacatur in USPTO Rules Case</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/13/just-in-federal-circuit-denies-vacatur-in-uspto-rules-case/id=7290/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/13/just-in-federal-circuit-denies-vacatur-in-uspto-rules-case/id=7290/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:52:52 +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[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims and continuation rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[glaxosmithkline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gsk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge cacheris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge lourie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge michel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tafas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vacatur]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JUST IN: Federal Circuit Denies Vacatur in USPTO Rules CaseEarlier today the Chief Judge Paul Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an Order declaring the pending appeal of Dr. Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline moot due to the fact that USPTO Director David Kappos has withdrawn the rules.  The [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/08/uspto-agrees-to-withdraw-claims-continuations-rules/id=6485/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims &#038; Continuations Rules'>USPTO Agrees to Withdraw Claims &#038; Continuations Rules</a><small> PRESS RELEASE: GlaxoSmithKline (NYSE: GSK) today announced that it has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to join the USPTO&#8217;s motion to dismiss its litigation over Final Regulations published in August 2007 (Triantafyllos Tafas and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, SmithKline Beecham PLC and Glaxo Group Limited vs. David J. Kappos and the [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/07/06/federal-circuit-to-rehear-tafas-and-gsk-v-doll/id=4508/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Federal Circuit to Rehear Tafas and GSK v. Doll'>Federal Circuit to Rehear Tafas and GSK v. Doll</a><small>On Monday, July 6, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (minus Judge Lourie who did not participate in the poll of judges) decided to rehear the claims and continuations rule challenge of Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline en banc.  Additionally, the CAFC has vacated the panel decision that awarded a victory to [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/09/kappos-rescinds-claims-continuations-rules-what-next/id=6495/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Kappos Rescinds Claims &#038; Continuations Rules, What Next?'>Kappos Rescinds Claims &#038; Continuations Rules, What Next?</a><small>By now most are likely aware of, or rapidly becoming aware of, the fact that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has finally done the right thing and has scrapped the claims and continuations rules that have divided the patent community for the last 26 months.  It is impossible not to recognize the new [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/13/just-in-federal-circuit-denies-vacatur-in-uspto-rules-case/id=7290/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Exploring Justice Steven&#8217;s Patent Past for Clues</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/id=7252/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/id=7252/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:28:14 +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[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice stevens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exploring Justice Steven&#8217;s Patent Past for CluesNow that the Bilski oral arguments are complete and the case has been submitted to the Court for consideration the guessing game begins.  Normally trying to figure out what a court will do is a waste of time, particularly so when that court is the Supreme Court, which is [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court'>Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court</a><small>At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/04/bilski-eyewitness-report-and-expert-analysis/id=7150/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis'>Bilski: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis</a><small>n Monday, November 9, 2009, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the much anticipated Bilski case, which could well decide once and for all whether business methods and software remain patentable in the United States. I will be in attendance at the oral argument, which will take place after a [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/the-bilski-oral-argument-speaks-volume-start-with-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-112/id=7272/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112'>The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112</a><small>After Monday’s oral argument, many are trying to divine how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the Bilski v. Kappos, and whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will survive. Having now read the oral argument transcript, my own prognostication is that the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will be trounced as [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/exploring-justice-stevens-patent-past-for-clues/id=7252/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Bird&#8217;s Eye View of the Bilski Oral Argument</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/10/a-birds-eye-view-of-the-bilski-oral-argument/id=7240/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/10/a-birds-eye-view-of-the-bilski-oral-argument/id=7240/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:03:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John White</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Bird&#8217;s Eye View of the Bilski Oral ArgumentUnlike Gene I did not really plan very well. I did not have credentials and am not (yet) a member of the Court. So, I was in line with the public. A patent centric public, but the public none-the-less. My fellow line standers included: Law students headed [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/the-bilski-oral-argument-speaks-volume-start-with-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-112/id=7272/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112'>The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112</a><small>After Monday’s oral argument, many are trying to divine how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the Bilski v. Kappos, and whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will survive. Having now read the oral argument transcript, my own prognostication is that the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will be trounced as [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court'>Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court</a><small>Later today the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Bilski matter. It is not an overstatement to say that the fate of much future innovation rests squarely on the Supreme Court getting this one right, so lets hope for the best and pray that they do get this one right. [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court'>Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court</a><small>At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/10/a-birds-eye-view-of-the-bilski-oral-argument/id=7240/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>37</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:55:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gene Quinn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Computers]]></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[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical processes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme CourtAt 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted.  The arguments  were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/04/bilski-eyewitness-report-and-expert-analysis/id=7150/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis'>Bilski: Eyewitness Report and Expert Analysis</a><small>n Monday, November 9, 2009, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the much anticipated Bilski case, which could well decide once and for all whether business methods and software remain patentable in the United States. I will be in attendance at the oral argument, which will take place after a [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court'>Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court</a><small>Later today the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Bilski matter. It is not an overstatement to say that the fate of much future innovation rests squarely on the Supreme Court getting this one right, so lets hope for the best and pray that they do get this one right. [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/the-bilski-oral-argument-speaks-volume-start-with-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-112/id=7272/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112'>The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112</a><small>After Monday’s oral argument, many are trying to divine how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the Bilski v. Kappos, and whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will survive. Having now read the oral argument transcript, my own prognostication is that the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will be trounced as [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:08:09 +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[Medical Devices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Software]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge mayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medtronic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Argument Day in Bilski at US Supreme CourtLater today the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Bilski matter. It is not an overstatement to say that the fate of much future innovation rests squarely on the Supreme Court getting this one right, so lets hope for the best and pray that [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/12/the-bilski-oral-argument-speaks-volume-start-with-35-u-s-c-%c2%a7-112/id=7272/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112'>The Bilski Oral Argument Speaks Volume:  Start with 35 U.S.C. § 112</a><small>After Monday’s oral argument, many are trying to divine how the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in the Bilski v. Kappos, and whether the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will survive. Having now read the oral argument transcript, my own prognostication is that the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test will be trounced as [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/bilski-arguments-complete-at-the-us-supreme-court/id=7217/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court'>Bilski Arguments Complete at the US Supreme Court</a><small>At 2pm ET on November 9, 2009, Chief Justice John Roberts gaveled the session to a close announcing that the case had now been submitted. The arguments were good, and the Court was most assuredly hot, peppering both sides with question after question seeking to probe the issues. It is clear that [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/10/a-birds-eye-view-of-the-bilski-oral-argument/id=7240/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: A Bird&#8217;s Eye View of the Bilski Oral Argument'>A Bird&#8217;s Eye View of the Bilski Oral Argument</a><small>Unlike Gene I did not really plan very well. I did not have credentials and am not (yet) a member of the Court. So, I was in line with the public. A patent centric public, but the public none-the-less. My fellow line standers included: Law students headed to taking the patent bar; a Finnegan partner [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/09/argument-day-in-bilski-at-us-supreme-court/id=7209/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Making the Case Against First to File</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/08/making-the-case-against-first-to-file/id=7197/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/08/making-the-case-against-first-to-file/id=7197/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ron Katznelson, Ph.D.</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[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to file]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first to invent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ron katznelson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Making the Case Against First to FileNOTE: This was originally written as a comment to my article Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File.  It is posted here as an article with the permission of Ron Katznelson.
************************
I generally respect those who have the capacity to change their opinions based on substantial relevant evidence and [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/07/much-ado-about-nothing-over-first-to-file/id=7191/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File'>Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File</a><small> Just about 24 hours ago I posted an article relating to my changing position with respect to first to file, and already there is something of a firestorm.  I understand there are those who feel I have abandoned them and adopted a naive view of the world. But excuse me for recognizing the new tone [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/08/challenging-patent-reform-first-to-file-provision/id=2475/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Challenging Patent Reform First-to-File Provision'>Challenging Patent Reform First-to-File Provision</a><small>I recently received an e-mail from Ron Katznelson, who is the Founder and President of Bi-Level Technologies in Encinitas, CA.  Dr. Katznelson is a named inventor in more than 25 U.S. patents and his research and development interests include optimal signal design, digital RF signal processing, digital television, signal representation &amp; sampling theory, intellectual property [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2008/07/29/uspto-ends-patent-outsourcing-to-india/id=184/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: USPTO Ends Patent Outsourcing to India'>USPTO Ends Patent Outsourcing to India</a><small>On July 23, 2008, the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office published an interesting notice in the Federal Register. This particular notice announced nothing new in terms of the law, but will have an enormous impact on the way patent services are provided to many corporations and law firms. Specifically, it has finally come to [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/08/making-the-case-against-first-to-file/id=7197/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/07/much-ado-about-nothing-over-first-to-file/id=7191/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/07/much-ado-about-nothing-over-first-to-file/id=7191/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:40:13 +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[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[nonprovisional patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provisional patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File
Just about 24 hours ago I posted an article relating to my changing position with respect to first to file, and already there is something of a firestorm.  I understand there are those who feel I have abandoned them and adopted a naive view of the world. But [...]


Related posts:<ol><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/08/making-the-case-against-first-to-file/id=7197/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Making the Case Against First to File'>Making the Case Against First to File</a><small>NOTE: This was originally written as a comment to my article Much Ado About Nothing Over First to File.  It is posted here as an article with the permission of Ron Katznelson. ************************ I generally respect those who have the capacity to change their opinions based on substantial relevant evidence and a compelling underlying factual record that [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/04/08/challenging-patent-reform-first-to-file-provision/id=2475/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Challenging Patent Reform First-to-File Provision'>Challenging Patent Reform First-to-File Provision</a><small>I recently received an e-mail from Ron Katznelson, who is the Founder and President of Bi-Level Technologies in Encinitas, CA.  Dr. Katznelson is a named inventor in more than 25 U.S. patents and his research and development interests include optimal signal design, digital RF signal processing, digital television, signal representation &amp; sampling theory, intellectual property [...]...</small></li><li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/06/secretary-locke-promises-strongest-ip-protection-in-the-world/id=7182/' rel='bookmark' title='Permanent Link: Secretary Locke Promises Strongest IP Protection in the World'>Secretary Locke Promises Strongest IP Protection in the World</a><small>I am just getting back from two days at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, having attended the 14th Annual Inventors Conference.  There is much to report, and much to write about, and I will continue to digest, analyze and write about what I saw and my impressions in the days to come.  It [...]...</small></li></ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://mitcho.com/code/yarpp/'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/07/much-ado-about-nothing-over-first-to-file/id=7191/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
