<?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, 12 Mar 2010 19:09:36 +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>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>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>6</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>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best Mode Patent-Raptor Devours Another Victim in Ajinomoto</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/best-mode-patent-raptor-devours-ajinomoto/id=9587/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/best-mode-patent-raptor-devours-ajinomoto/id=9587/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:23:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[itc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ajinomoto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[best mode]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bioengineer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[E. Coli]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge lourie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurassic park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lysine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tyrannosaurus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[velociraptor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the end, Ajinomoto, and especially the ‘698 and ‘160 patents, were unable to outrun the “best mode” patentraptor.  And like the sequels to Jurassic Park, there are likely to be future instances where this patentivour devours other U.S. patents, including those of foreign applicants who may even be ignorant of this patent monster.  But ignorance of the “best mode” patentraptor is equivalent to not being aware that the bioengineered dinosaurs were multiplying in dangerous numbers in Jurassic Park.  The message is now clear in the Ajinomoto case:  be aware or be eaten by the “best mode” patentraptor.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/10/best-mode-patent-raptor-devours-ajinomoto/id=9587/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</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>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>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>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>How to Effectively But Safely Tell the Story of the Invention</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/how-to-effectively-but-safely-telling-the-story-of-the-invention/id=9470/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/how-to-effectively-but-safely-telling-the-story-of-the-invention/id=9470/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 20:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[benefit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ksr v. teleflex]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[story of the invention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teach away]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unexpected results]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m sure some patent litigators will blanch at what I’m suggesting about telling the “story” behind the invention in a patent application because of all the supposed “admissions” that will be made.  But most patent litigators haven’t had to endure the frustration we patent prosecutors experience when try to get a “silk purse patent” based on a “sow’s ear description” because there’s no “story” told in the patent application about why the invention is patentable.  Also, drafting a “litigation-proof” patent application (if one exists) is meaningless if you can’t get that patent application allowed because the “story” told doesn’t sell the patentability of the invention.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/03/how-to-effectively-but-safely-telling-the-story-of-the-invention/id=9470/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</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>Judge Rader Doth Protest Too Much in Media Technologies</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/judge-rader-doth-protest-too-much-in-media-technologies/id=9449/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/judge-rader-doth-protest-too-much-in-media-technologies/id=9449/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Bloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[analogous art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge dyk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge mayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[long felt unsolved need]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary considerations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skateboard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[skepticism in the industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports memorabilia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sports trading cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Upper Deck Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 5803501]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent No. 6142532]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Normally, I find Judge Rader, the heir apparent for Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, to write cogently and persuasively, even in dissent.  Witness his withering blast in In re Bilski where he rightly takes the majority to task for the nonsensical “machine or transformation” test.  But unfortunately, like the line from Hamlet, Judge Rader “doth protest too much, methinks” without case law support in his dissent in Media Technologies.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/03/02/judge-rader-doth-protest-too-much-in-media-technologies/id=9449/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>24</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>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>Obviousness Ruling Based on Mischaracterizations of Reference Overturned by CAFC</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/obviousness-ruling-based-on-mischaracterizations-of-reference-overturned-by-cafc/id=9295/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/obviousness-ruling-based-on-mischaracterizations-of-reference-overturned-by-cafc/id=9295/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:08:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Eric Guttag</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Guttag]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board of patent appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bpai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cafc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chapman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harmless error]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge clevenger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge dyk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge gajarsa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mischaracterizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[substantial evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 5436154]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us patent no. 6025158]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=9295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[But what is refreshing and important in the Federal Circuit’s opinion is that mischaracterizations of references relied upon by the patent examiner (or the BPAI) for obviousness rulings are not to be simply glossed over as “harmless error.”  Put differently, the Chapman decision gives patent applicant’s a viable legal basis to hold a patent examiner’s (as well as the BPAI’s) “feet to the fire” to challenge an obviousness (or anticipation) rejection based on one or more mischaracterizations of a reference.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2010/02/25/obviousness-ruling-based-on-mischaracterizations-of-reference-overturned-by-cafc/id=9295/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</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>
