<?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 | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</title>
	<atom:link href="https://ipwatchdog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/</link>
	<description>Trusted on intellectual property law. News and commentary on patents, innovation policy, trade secrets, copyrights and trademarks.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 22:40:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>CAFC Finds Profitability-Calculation Patent Claims Ineligible</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/cafc-finds-profitability-calculation-patent-claims-ineligible/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/cafc-finds-profitability-calculation-patent-claims-ineligible/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 22:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 101]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206218</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Berkeley*IEOR v. W.W. Grainger Inc., reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment that a set of profitability-calculation patent claims were eligible under Section 101. The CAFC held that the representative claim is directed to an abstract idea and that the inventive concept identified by the district court, a form of parallel computer processing, is not required by the claim language.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/cafc-finds-profitability-calculation-patent-claims-ineligible/">CAFC Finds Profitability-Calculation Patent Claims Ineligible</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/cafc-finds-profitability-calculation-patent-claims-ineligible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Application File Never Really Closes: Implications of Recent Case Law on the Prosecution Record</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/application-file-never-really-closes-implications-recent-case-law-prosecution-record/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/application-file-never-really-closes-implications-recent-case-law-prosecution-record/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tim Bright]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2026 13:03:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[estoppel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206181</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Patent prosecution is often treated as a sequence of discrete tasks: respond to the office action. Amend the claim. Make the argument. Obtain allowance. Move on. Recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions show why that model is incomplete. The prosecution record can later shape infringement theories, affect whether a reference qualifies as prior art, and determine whether a statutory avenue for review remains available. The cases arise under different doctrines, but they support one durable conclusion: prosecution is part of the patent's long-term risk allocation.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/application-file-never-really-closes-implications-recent-case-law-prosecution-record/">The Application File Never Really Closes: Implications of Recent Case Law on the Prosecution Record</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/21/application-file-never-really-closes-implications-recent-case-law-prosecution-record/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amici Tell Justices to Rein In USPTO’s ‘Settled Expectations’ Doctrine</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/20/amici-tell-justices-to-rein-in-usptos-settled-expectations-doctrine/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/20/amici-tell-justices-to-rein-in-usptos-settled-expectations-doctrine/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2026 16:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amici]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settled expectations]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206168</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Following a July petition for writ of certiorari filed by Kahoot AS! asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine for denying inter partes review (IPR) requests is authorized under the patent statute, the PTAB Bar Association and other amici this past week have urged the Court to take up&#8230;</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/20/amici-tell-justices-to-rein-in-usptos-settled-expectations-doctrine/">Amici Tell Justices to Rein In USPTO’s ‘Settled Expectations’ Doctrine</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/20/amici-tell-justices-to-rein-in-usptos-settled-expectations-doctrine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, September 18: Third Circuit Hears Arguments in Vintage Merch Case; Ninth Circuit Nixes Output Challenge Under DMCA; and CAFC Affirms Attorneys’ Fees in Lab-Grown Diamond Case</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/18/other-barks-ninth-circuit-nixes-output-challenge-under-dmca-and-cafc-affirms-attorneys-fees-in-lab-grow/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/18/other-barks-ninth-circuit-nixes-output-challenge-under-dmca-and-cafc-affirms-attorneys-fees-in-lab-grow/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Steve Brachmann]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2026 17:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Other Barks and Bites]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206176</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week in Other Barks &#038; Bites: the Ninth Circuit finds that a series of Doe plaintiffs did not succeed on the theory that GitHub’s AI-powered coding platform violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under an output theory; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires says that U.S. trademark filings have increased 11% compared to the first nine months of 2025; the Protect College Sports Act moves toward a vote on the U.S. Senate floor that will likely happen next week; and more. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/18/other-barks-ninth-circuit-nixes-output-challenge-under-dmca-and-cafc-affirms-attorneys-fees-in-lab-grow/">Other Barks &#038; Bites for Friday, September 18: Third Circuit Hears Arguments in Vintage Merch Case; Ninth Circuit Nixes Output Challenge Under DMCA; and CAFC Affirms Attorneys’ Fees in Lab-Grown Diamond Case</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/18/other-barks-ninth-circuit-nixes-output-challenge-under-dmca-and-cafc-affirms-attorneys-fees-in-lab-grow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Bill Would Overhaul Judicial Misconduct Proceedings in Light of Moore-Newman Battle</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/new-bill-would-overhaul-judicial-misconduct-proceedings-in-light-of-moore-newman-battle/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/new-bill-would-overhaul-judicial-misconduct-proceedings-in-light-of-moore-newman-battle/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 17:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Capitol Hill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Pauline Newman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial Conduct and Disability Reform Act of 2026]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Representative Scott Fitzgerald]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206151</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) has introduced a bill to amend the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, inspired by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman’s fight to restore her status as an active judge, following a three-year suspension of her duties initiated by CAFC Chief Judge Kimberly Moore.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/new-bill-would-overhaul-judicial-misconduct-proceedings-in-light-of-moore-newman-battle/">New Bill Would Overhaul Judicial Misconduct Proceedings in Light of Moore-Newman Battle</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/new-bill-would-overhaul-judicial-misconduct-proceedings-in-light-of-moore-newman-battle/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Schedule A Litigation Is Not the Problem: Online Counterfeiting Is</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/schedule-a-litigation-is-not-the-problem-online-counterfeiting-is/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/schedule-a-litigation-is-not-the-problem-online-counterfeiting-is/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 16:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[due process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online counterfeiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schedule A litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademarks]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206073</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Online counterfeiting has become ubiquitous. A seller located anywhere in the world can create a digital storefront, copy a brand owner's photographs and product descriptions, adopt a business name that reveals nothing, and begin selling into the United States before the brand owner even knows the account exists. If the seller is discovered and enforcement begins, the listing disappears, the money moves out of the country and beyond the practical reach of the court system, and a new account surfaces under a different name. Then the entire process repeats.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/schedule-a-litigation-is-not-the-problem-online-counterfeiting-is/">Schedule A Litigation Is Not the Problem: Online Counterfeiting Is</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/schedule-a-litigation-is-not-the-problem-online-counterfeiting-is/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Rejection of Catheter Patent Application Over Incorrect Claim Construction</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/federal-circuit-vacates-ptab-rejection-of-catheter-patent-application-over-incorrect-claim-construction/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/federal-circuit-vacates-ptab-rejection-of-catheter-patent-application-over-incorrect-claim-construction/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 15:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patentability requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206155</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Incept LLC, vacating and remanding a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that had affirmed an examiner’s rejection of a medical catheter patent application as obvious. Since the Board’s obviousness analysis relied on an incorrect construction of the claim term “flow barrier,” the CAFC declined to reach the underlying obviousness question and returned the case to the Board for further proceedings.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/federal-circuit-vacates-ptab-rejection-of-catheter-patent-application-over-incorrect-claim-construction/">Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Rejection of Catheter Patent Application Over Incorrect Claim Construction</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/federal-circuit-vacates-ptab-rejection-of-catheter-patent-application-over-incorrect-claim-construction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Memoriam: Dan Brown: Inventor, Entrepreneur, Patent Advocate</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/in-memoriam-dan-brown-inventor-entrepreneur-patent-advocate/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/in-memoriam-dan-brown-inventor-entrepreneur-patent-advocate/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bruce Berman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 14:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventors Information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dan Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[famous inventors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In Memoriam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent inventor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206136</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Inventors lost a champion this week. The sudden passing of Dan Brown, serial entrepreneur, 100+ patent holder, educator and policy activist, will leave a void. Dan was a vocal proponent of a fair intellectual property system, committed to building an equitable one for all inventors and creators.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/in-memoriam-dan-brown-inventor-entrepreneur-patent-advocate/">In Memoriam: Dan Brown: Inventor, Entrepreneur, Patent Advocate</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/17/in-memoriam-dan-brown-inventor-entrepreneur-patent-advocate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Pivot on PTAB Oversight Raises Questions About PTAB Control</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/uspto-pivot-ptab-oversight-raises-questions-about-ptab-control/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/uspto-pivot-ptab-oversight-raises-questions-about-ptab-control/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 19:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[APJs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inter partes review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Squires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTAB Judges]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206090</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Sources familiar with operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have told IPWatchdog that USPTO Director John Squires has informed the Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that he will be relinquishing decision-making authority on which patent challenges to institute, returning the decision to the PTAB. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/uspto-pivot-ptab-oversight-raises-questions-about-ptab-control/">USPTO Pivot on PTAB Oversight Raises Questions About PTAB Control</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/uspto-pivot-ptab-oversight-raises-questions-about-ptab-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Groups Slam Issa Bill to Expedite Site Blocking Orders</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/groups-slam-issa-bill-to-expedite-site-blocking-orders/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/groups-slam-issa-bill-to-expedite-site-blocking-orders/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 17:16:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology & Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Copyright Protection Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congressman Darrell Issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISPs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[site blocking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206107</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Representative Darrell Issa introduced the American Copyright Protection Act (ACPA) on Monday, a bill aimed at creating an expedited judicial mechanism for copyright owners to obtain orders blocking access to certain foreign piracy sites. While the official text of the bill has not yet been published, several groups have responded based on their review of a draft of the bill that was circulated to stakeholders in May 2025.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/groups-slam-issa-bill-to-expedite-site-blocking-orders/">Groups Slam Issa Bill to Expedite Site Blocking Orders</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/groups-slam-issa-bill-to-expedite-site-blocking-orders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Songwriter Tells SCOTUS to Ignore Music Companies’ Bid to Retain Foreign Copyright in His Song</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/songwriter-tells-scotus-to-ignore-music-companies-bid-to-retain-foreign-copyright-in-his-song/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/songwriter-tells-scotus-to-ignore-music-companies-bid-to-retain-foreign-copyright-in-his-song/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2026 12:15:19 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Circuit Courts of Appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright renewal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court petition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206124</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A songwriter told the U.S. Supreme Court this week to reject an attempt by the four largest music companies in the world to reverse a Fifth Circuit ruling granting him all rights to the 1966 Swingin’ Medallions single, “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love).” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in January 2026 in Vetter v. Resnick, affirming the Middle District of Louisiana’s grant of summary judgment declaring that Cyril Vetter, co-author of “Double Shot,” and Vetter’s affiliated companies are the sole owners of the copyright to the song throughout the world.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/songwriter-tells-scotus-to-ignore-music-companies-bid-to-retain-foreign-copyright-in-his-song/">Songwriter Tells SCOTUS to Ignore Music Companies’ Bid to Retain Foreign Copyright in His Song</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/16/songwriter-tells-scotus-to-ignore-music-companies-bid-to-retain-foreign-copyright-in-his-song/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can the Patent System Keep Pace with Life Sciences Innovation? &#124; IPWatchdog Unleashed</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/patent-system-life-sciences-innovation/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/patent-system-life-sciences-innovation/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 21:30:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Unleashed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Podcasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharmaceutical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharmaceutical industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharmaceutical innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biopharmaceutical research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dana-Farber Cancer Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gene Quinn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life sciences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oncology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent eligible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pharmaceutical innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steve Caltrider]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206045</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Steve Caltrider, Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and a former General Patent Counsel at Eli Lilly. The discussion also examined patent quality and the role of examination. Caltrider’s view is that the best time to establish confidence in a patent is when the USPTO examines it—not years later through PTAB review or district court litigation, after investment decisions have already been made. He recognized the need for an error-correction mechanism, while cautioning that review should not become so extensive or unpredictable that it undermines the value of issued patents.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/patent-system-life-sciences-innovation/">Can the Patent System Keep Pace with Life Sciences Innovation? | &lt;i&gt;IPWatchdog Unleashed&lt;/i&gt;</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/patent-system-life-sciences-innovation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>More Than 200 Companies Urge Federal Rules Committee to Require Disclosure of Litigation Funders</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/more-than-200-companies-urge-federal-rules-committee-require-disclosure-litigation-funders/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/more-than-200-companies-urge-federal-rules-committee-require-disclosure-litigation-funders/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 18:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyers for Civil Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation funders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[third-party litigation funding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TPFL]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206077</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A coalition of 214 companies and organizations sent a letter on September 14 to Carolyn A. Dubay, Secretary of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure at the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, urging the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules to amend the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) to require disclosure of nonparty litigation funders in federal civil litigation. Signatories included Amazon, Google, Microsoft, ExxonMobil, Meta, Ford, Anthropic, OpenAI, numerous insurers, pharmaceutical firms, and manufacturers.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/more-than-200-companies-urge-federal-rules-committee-require-disclosure-litigation-funders/">More Than 200 Companies Urge Federal Rules Committee to Require Disclosure of Litigation Funders</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/more-than-200-companies-urge-federal-rules-committee-require-disclosure-litigation-funders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Vacates Win for Patent Owner Due to Bad Claim Construction</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/federal-circuit-vacates-win-for-patent-owner-due-to-bad-claim-construction/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/federal-circuit-vacates-win-for-patent-owner-due-to-bad-claim-construction/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eileen McDermott]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 13:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[precedential decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prior art]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206022</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In a precedential decision issued Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated a patent infringement judgment against Nine Energy Service Inc., holding that the Western District of Texas court incorrectly construed two terms of NCS Multistage’s patent and that an earlier sale relied upon by NCS did not qualify as a public disclosure under the America Invents Act (AIA).</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/federal-circuit-vacates-win-for-patent-owner-due-to-bad-claim-construction/">Federal Circuit Vacates Win for Patent Owner Due to Bad Claim Construction</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/15/federal-circuit-vacates-win-for-patent-owner-due-to-bad-claim-construction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Reverses Dismissal of TexasLDPC’s Infringement Suit Against Broadcom</title>
		<link>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/14/cafc-reverses-dismissal-of-texasldpcs-infringement-suit-against-broadcom/</link>
					<comments>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/14/cafc-reverses-dismissal-of-texasldpcs-infringement-suit-against-broadcom/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rose Esfandiari]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2026 21:39:41 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAFC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[precedential decisions]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://ipwatchdog.com/?p=206005</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., reversing a district court’s dismissal of a patent and copyright infringement lawsuit brought by an exclusive licensee that had not joined the patent owner as a co-plaintiff. The court held that TexasLDPC Inc.’s license agreement with Texas A&#038;M University (A&#038;M) did not automatically terminate when TexasLDPC shifted its business to patent enforcement. The agreement conveyed “all substantial rights” in the asserted patents to TexasLDPC, making A&#038;M “not otherwise a necessary party” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/14/cafc-reverses-dismissal-of-texasldpcs-infringement-suit-against-broadcom/">CAFC Reverses Dismissal of TexasLDPC’s Infringement Suit Against Broadcom</a> appeared first on <a href="https://ipwatchdog.com">IPWatchdog.com | Patents &amp; Intellectual Property Law</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/09/14/cafc-reverses-dismissal-of-texasldpcs-infringement-suit-against-broadcom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- plugin=object-cache-pro client=phpredis metric#hits=6423 metric#misses=19 metric#hit-ratio=99.7 metric#bytes=7312446 metric#prefetches=234 metric#store-reads=60 metric#store-writes=7 metric#store-hits=366 metric#store-misses=11 metric#sql-queries=28 metric#ms-total=753.91 metric#ms-cache=53.81 metric#ms-cache-avg=0.8153 metric#ms-cache-ratio=7.1 -->
