<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0"> 

<channel>

<title>LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Patents Legal News</title>

<link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/mealeys/news.aspx</link>

<description>Headline Patents Legal News from LexisNexis®</description>

<language>en-us</language>

 

<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>

<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/PatentsLegalNews" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883409/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dispute Over Palmaz Patent Ends In $1.2 Billion Final Judgment</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WILMINGTON, Del. - A decade-old patent dispute between Johnson &amp; Johnson Interventional Systems and its parent corporation, Cordis Corp., against two rival stent makers ended Sept. 29 with a $1.2 billion final judgment (Boston Scientific Corporation and SciMed Life Systems Inc. v. Ethicon Inc., Cordis Corporation and Johnson &amp; Johnson Interventional Systems, No. 98-19-SLR, D. Del. and Cordis Corporation v. Medtronic Vascular Inc., Boston Scientific Corporation and SciMed Life Systems Inc., No. 97-550-SLR, D. Del.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883410/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Summary Judgment Reversed In Dispute Over Slot Machine Patents</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - "Improper revival" of a patent application that had been deemed abandoned is not a cognizable defense to an allegation of infringement, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 22 (Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty. Ltd. and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. v. International Game Technology and IGT, No. 2008-1018, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883411/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Circuit Partially Vacates ITC Ruling</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 19 partly vacated a noninfringement ruling by the International Trade Commission, saying that with respect to one of the accused devices, the administrative law judge (ALJ) adopted, based on an understanding of witness testimony, a requirement that was not mandated by the ALJ's claim construction (Broadcom Corporation v. International Trade Commission and Qualcomm Incorporated, Nos. 2007-1164, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20062.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883412/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>JMOL Affirmed On Appeal In Dispute Over MP3 Digital Audio atents</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Sept. 25 affirmed a lower court's grant of judgment as a matter of law that overturned a jury's finding of infringement of two Lucent patents by Gateway, Microsoft and Dell that had resulted in the jury awarding damages of more than $1.5 billion (Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al., Nos. 2007-1546, -1580, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20319). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883413/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Government Loses When Plaintiff Wins Partial Summary Judgment Ruling</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The government gives its authorization and consent to activities under a contract and thus is liable if those activities infringe if the terms of the contract obligate the contractor to perform the work in an infringing manner, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims held Sept. 17 (TDM America, LLC v. The United States and Donjon Marine Company, Inc., No. 06-472C, Fed. Clms.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883414/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Where Business Is Interfered With, Jurisdiction Exists</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - Personal jurisdiction can be created in another state when a patentee who otherwise has only a minimal presence there takes steps there to interfere with another company's business practices, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 18 (The Campbell Pet Company v. Theresa Miale and Ty-Lift Enterprises, No. 2008-1109, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19775; See 5/19/08, Page 27). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883416/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Panel Says Failure To Obtain Opinion Is Relevant To Intent Inquiry</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - Failure to obtain opinion of counsel as to infringement is relevant in determining the intent of an alleged infringer in the inducement context and may be probative, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 24 (Broadcom Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Nos. 2008-1199, -1271, -1272, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883419/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Circuit Reverses Finding That Patent Is Valid As Nonobvious</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - Summary judgment of nonobviousness should not be granted where the problems addressed by prior art references of record were "sufficiently similar" to those addressed in the patent to create a factual question of whether a person of skill in the art would have looked to the teachings of those references to solve the problems, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 19 (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Buffalo Technology (USA), Inc. and Buffalo, Inc., No. 2007-1449, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20061). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883420/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>En Banc Panel Abandons 'Point Of Novelty' Test In Design Patent Cases</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has dropped the "point of novelty" test as a separate test for design patent infringement, instead holding that the "ordinary observer" test should be the sole test, applied through the eyes of an observer familiar with the prior art (Egyptian Goddess, Inc. and Dei Torkiya v. Swisa, Inc. and Dror Swisa, No. 2006-1562, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20104). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883421/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Patent Exhaustion Does Not Create Federal Jurisdiction</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - Patent exhaustion is a defense to a charge of patent infringement and is not itself a cause of action sufficient to create federal court jurisdiction under the patent laws, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 16 (ExcelStor Technology, Inc., et al. v. Papst Licensing GMBH &amp; Co., KG, No. 2008-1140, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19570). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883422/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>1 Patent Properly Deemed Unenforceable, Another Incorrectly So, Panel Says</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an inequitable conduct inquiry, "hindsight construction" does not serve as a credible explanation for why a reference was withheld from the Patent and Trademark Office during prosecution, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 29 (Praxair, Inc. and Praxair Technology, Inc., v. ATMI, Inc. and Advanced Technology Materials, Inc., No. 2007-1483, -1509, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883423/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Court Denies Rehearing Of Ruling In Rambus Exclusionary Conduct Case</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 26 denied the Federal Trade Commission's motion for rehearing en banc of the court's ruling that the FTC failed to sustain its allegation that Rambus Inc., a computer memory technology developer, engaged in exclusionary conduct by failing to disclose patents to a standard-setting organization (SSO) (Rambus Incorporated v. Federal Trade Commission, Nos. 07-1086, 07-1124, D.C. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883424/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>News From The LexisNexis Patent, Copyright And Trademark Law Centers</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[[Editor's Note: The following items of interest appeared recently on the LexisNexis Patent Law Center, the LexisNexis Copyright Law Center and the LexisNexis Trademark Law Center. Devoted to patent and trademark litigation and intellectual property issues, the Patent and Trademark Centers are where you can connect with other IP professionals to discuss the hottest issues. Become a regular contributor. Visit the centers on the open Web for headlines, discussion, expert commentary and more at: http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/patent, http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/copyright-Law and http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/trademark-law.] 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883425/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Bayer Says 'Obvious To Experiment' Standard Contradicts 'KSR'</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Bayer Schering Pharma AG and Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Barr Laboratories, No. 08-1282, Fed. Cir. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883426/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Fees Award, Misconduct Finding Debated On Appeal</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: E-Pass Technologies Inc. v. 3Com Corp., et al., No. 08-1144, 08-1145 and 08-1146, Fed. Cir.; See 1/22/07, Page 13. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/413883427/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Wheel Maker Blames Noninfringement Finding On Faulty Construction</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Kuhl Wheels LLC and Epilogics Group v. General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Hayes Lemmerz International Inc., No. 08-1158 and 08-1179, Fed. Cir.; See 9/8/08, Page 20. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-9 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 16 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-9 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 16%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892824/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Validity Findings Vacated, Remanded In Dispute Between Tobacco Companies</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - While intent to deceive in an inequitable conduct inquiry can be inferred, no inference can be drawn if there is no evidence, direct or indirect, to support such an inference, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 25 (Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, No. 2007-1448, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18160; See 12/10/07, Page 25). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892825/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Claims Upheld As Invalid; Prior Art Discloses Limitation, Panel Says</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 28 affirmed a finding by the International Trade Commission that claims were invalid for anticipation, saying the prior art discloses the limitation at issue even under the broader definition proffered by the patentee (Linear Technology Corporation v. International Trade Commission, No. 2007-1572, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18826). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892826/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Infringement Judgment Reversed; Validity Of Unasserted Claim Off Limits</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A district court should not issue a ruling on the validity of unasserted claims that were neither litigated nor placed in issue during a trial, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 9 (800 Adept, Inc. v. Mures Securities, Ltd., et al., Nos. 2007-1272, -1356, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18521). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892827/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>3 Patents For Recombinant Plasmids Are Invalid, Panel Says</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - More than a statement of a chemical or biotechnological genus normally is required to satisfy the written description requirement, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 8, adding that the inventor must show that he is in possession of sufficient species to show that he has invented and disclosed the totality of the genus (Carnegie Mellon University and Three Rivers Biologicals, Inc., v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., et al., No. 2007-1266, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892828/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Circuit Vacates Declaratory Judgment Of Noninfringement</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The presumption that a claim term that does not include the word "means" is not in means-plus-function format is not overcome when the structure recited conveys to one of skill in the art a certain genus of structures, even if the term "does not conjure up any one specific structure," the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 12 in a nonprecedential opinion (Duratech Industries International, Inc. v. Bridgeview Manufacturing, Inc., No. 2008-1157, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892829/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Circuit Partly Affirms Findings In Dispute Over Surgical Devices</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - It was not willful infringement for a company to sell off its inventory of a device that had been found to infringe a patent, based on the advice of counsel who predicted a favorable outcome on post-trial motions then pending before the court, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 28 (Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc., et al., Nos. 2007-1420, -1440, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18825). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892831/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Letter Not Relevant To Construction Of Claim Language</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A letter from an attorney prosecuting a patent application to the inventor describing the results of an examiner interview is of "no value" in the construction of claim language, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 2 (Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. 2007-1363, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18747). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892832/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Apotex, Impax Infringe Omeprazole Patents With Prilosec</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld judgments of infringement against two companies, Apotex Corp. and Impax Laboratories Inc., in the multifaceted litigation involving Astrazeneca AB patents relating to omeprazole, the active ingredient in Prilosec (In Re Omeprazole Patent Litigation, Nos. 2000-1414, -1416, -1458 and -1459, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17691). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892833/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dismissal Of Declaratory Judgment Counterclaims Affirmed By Federal Circuit</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The 180-day marketing exclusivity period for the first abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filer does not create an Article III controversy for purposes of a later filer seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement of a patent, but rather is "a result envisioned by the Hatch-Waxman Act," the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 4 (Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V. and Janssen, L.P. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 2008-1062, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18822). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892834/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Jurisdiction Lacking, Federal Circuit Affirms</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - Demonstrating a device at a trade show does not constitute a "use" for purposes of personal jurisdiction if the device was not "put into service," the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 9 (Medical Solutions, Inc. v. C Change Surgical LLC, No. 2007-1163, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19173). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892835/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>With New Issues, PTO Can Re-examine Patent Regardless Of Court Judgment</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A court judgment finding a claim not invalid does not preclude the Patent and Trademark Office from finding that there is a substantial new question of validity for purposes of a re-examination regarding an issue that the Patent and Trademark Office had not previously considered, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Sept. 4 (In Re Melvin J. Swanson and Patrick E. Guire, No. 2007-1534, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18928). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892836/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Willfulness Finding Vacated But Rulings Generally Affirmed By Panel</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 18 vacated and remanded a finding that infringement was willful, holding that a jury instruction reflecting its intervening change in the standard for willfulness may have changed the jury verdict on that issue (Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation, Nos. 2007-1297, -343, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17542). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892837/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>News From The LexisNexis Patent, Copyright And Trademark Law Centers</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[[Editor's Note: The following items of interest appeared recently on the LexisNexis Patent Law Center, the LexisNexis Copyright Law Center and the LexisNexis Trademark Law Center. Devoted to patent and trademark litigation and intellectual property issues, the Patent and Trademark Centers are where you can connect with other IP professionals to discuss the hottest issues. Become a regular contributor. Visit the centers on the open Web for headlines, discussion, expert commentary and more at: http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/patent, http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/copyright-Law and http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/trademark-law.] 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892838/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Obviousness Of Hemodialysis Machine Patents Debated On Appeal</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Fresenius USA Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings Inc. v. Baxter International Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 08-1306 and 08-1331, Fed. Cir. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892839/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>E-mail Technology Patentee Says Triable Facts Remain</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Digital Impact Inc. V. Bigfoot Interactive Inc., No. 08-1255 and 08-1256, Fed. Cir. Appellant brief: Filed Aug21 by Digital Impact IncAppellant brief available 78-080922-012B 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/400892840/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Patentee Disputes Construction, Prior Use Finding</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Clock Spring LP v. WrapMaster Inc., Applied Consultants Inc. and Glenn Davis, No. 08-1332 and 08-1347, Fed. Cir.; See 9/8/08, Page 22. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-8 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 16 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-8 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 16%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
  
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942747/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Denial Of Petition To Terminate Re-examination Proceedings Affirmed</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of which patents are subject to inter partes re-examination, holding that under the deference due to administrative rulemaking, the PTO was acting within its discretion when it decided that patents issued from continuation applications filed after the effective date of the law authorizing such re-examinations are subject to them (Cooper Technologies Company v. Jon W. Dudas, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, No. 2008-1130, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 1 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 1%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942748/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Reissue Patent Properly Deemed Invalid, Federal Circuit Concludes</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 15 affirmed summary judgment that a reissue patent was invalid on grounds that the reissue, which was applied for more than two years after the original patent, broadened the subject matter in a way that would cause infringement by products that did not infringe the original patent (Brady Construction Innovations, Inc. v. Perfect Wall, Inc. and Metal-Lite, Inc., et al., Nos. 2007-1460, -1486, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17507). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 2 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 2%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942749/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Trade Secret Claim Properly Dismissed; Patents Deemed Invalid</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - An invention that embodies the later claims of a patent covering it is ready for patenting for purposes of the on-sale bar regardless of whether it would work on a commercial scale at that point, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 19 (In Re Cygnus Telecommunications Technology, LLC Patent Litigation, Nos. 2007-1328, -1329, -1330, -1331, -1332, -1333, -1354, -1361 and 2008 -1023, Fed. Cir.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 3 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 3%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942750/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Invalidity Findings Upheld On Appeal</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - A prior art reference can anticipate even if a use as claimed in a later patent would not have been practical at the time, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 21 (Leggett &amp; Platt, Incorporated and L&amp;P Property Management Company v. VUTEK, Inc., No. 2007-1515, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17765.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 4 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 4%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942751/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Federal Circuit Vacates Summary Judgment Of Noninfringement</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - "Reasonable steps and good faith efforts" to bring infringing activity to a timely end do not excuse an infringer from liability until infringement stops, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 19 (DSW, Inc. and DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., No. 2008-1085, Fed. Cir.; See 4/7/08, Page 24). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 5 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 5%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942752/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dismissal Granted In Dispute Over JPEG Business Method Patent</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A hotel group on Aug. 13 won dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the owner of the so-called JPEG-on-the-Internet patent (Global Patent Holdings LLC v. Panthers BRHC LLC d/b/a The Boca Raton Resort &amp; Club, No. 08-80013, S.D. Fla.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61697). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 6 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 6%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942753/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Claim That Branded Drug Manufacturer Misused Patent Does Not Survive</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 25 affirmed summary judgment for a branded hypertension drug manufacturer on wholesale purchasers' claims that the drug manufacturer misused a patent and engaged in sham litigation to keep a generic equivalent off the market (Meijer, Inc., et al. v. Biovail Corporation, Nos. 05-7066, 05-7069, 05-7084, 06-7118, D.C. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15880). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 7 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 7%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942754/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>DRAM Manufacturers Are Denied New Trial Denied In Rambus Monopolization Case</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN JOSE, Calif. - A federal judge in California on July 24 denied dynamic random access memory (DRAM) manufacturers' motion for a new trial against Rambus Inc., a computer memory technology developer, on claims that Rambus engaged in anti-competitive conduct by failing to disclose patents to a standard-setting organization (SSO) (Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc.; Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al.; Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Nos. 00-20905, 05-00334, 06-00244, N.D. Calif.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60838). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 8 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 8%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942756/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>'Stiff Monetary' Sanctions Warranted, District Court Says In 'Egregious' Case</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[SAN FRANCISCO - Holding that discovery misconduct by a series of defendants was "among the most egregious" she's ever seen, a federal magistrate judge on Aug. 12 granted a plaintiff's request for more than $300,000 in sanctions (Kevin Keithley et al. v. The HomeStore.com Inc. et al., No. C03-4447, N.D. Calif.; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61741.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 9 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 9%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942757/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Dismissal Of Declaratory Judgment Action Appeal Upheld By Federal Circuit</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 21 affirmed the dismissal of a patent-related appeal in a declaratory judgment action, finding that under the circumstances the district court was "unable to provide any realistic relief" (Merck &amp; Co., Inc., v. Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corporation, No. 2008-1133, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18378; See 6/16/08, Page 25.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 10 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 10%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942758/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>No Controversy Between Parties, Panel Concludes</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[WASHINGTON, D.C. - The lack of evidence that a patentee believes or plans to assert that another party's product infringes "creates a high barrier" to a showing of an imminent risk of injury to establish Declaratory Judgment Act jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held Aug. 15 (Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation and Imaginative Research Associates, Inc., No. 2007-1524, Fed. Cir.; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17329.). 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 11 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 11%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942759/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Wheel Maker Seeks Affirmance Of Noninfringement Ruling</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Kuhl Wheels LLC and Epilogics Group v. General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Hayes Lemmerz International Inc., No. 08-1158 and 08-1179, Fed. Cir.; See 6/16/08, Page 23. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 12 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 12%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942760/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Claim Construction Of Snowmobile Seats At Issue On Appeal</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Boss Industries Inc. and James Atherley v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA Inc., No. 08-1311, Fed. Cir. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 13 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 13%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942761/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Commercial, Public Use Invalidated Patent, Appellee Says</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Clock Spring LP v. WrapMaster Inc., Applied Consultants Inc. and Glenn Davis, No. 08-1332 and 08-1347, Fed. Cir.; See 8/4/08, Page 21. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 14 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 14%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942762/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Appellee Says Narrowing Amendments Preclude Infringement Finding</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: ZipWall LLC v. FastCap LLC, No. 08-1249 and 08-1250, Fed. Cir.; See 8/4/08, Page 22. Cross-appellant brief: Filed Aug13 by FastCap LLCCross-appellant brief available 78-080908-007B 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 15 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 15%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942763/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Meat Sanitizer Firms Dispute Construction, Willfulness On Appeal</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: Ecolab Inc. v. FMC Corp., No. 08-1228 and 08-1252, Fed. Cir.; See 7/7/08, Page 24. Cross-appellant brief: Filed June 23 by FMC CorpCross-appellant brief available 78-080908-009B 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 16 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 16%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
 
<item>
<link>http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/PatentsLegalNews/~3/387942764/articleSearch.do</link>
<title>Patentee Says Narrow Construction Led To Noninfringement</title>
<description>
<![CDATA[Case: The MathWorks Inc. v. COMSOL AB and COMSOL Inc., No. 08-1283, Fed. Cir.; See 8/18/08, Page 23. 
<a href="http://www.lexis.com/research/xlink?canceldest=form&amp;keyenum=25271&amp;keytnum=0&amp;searchtype=get&amp;search=16-7 Mealey's Litig. Rep. Patents 17 (2008)&amp;view=full&amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00144" target="_blank">Full story on lexis.com</a>]]>
</description>
<feedburner:origLink>http://www.mealeysonline.com/mealey/ppv/articleSearch.do?searchTerm=%22%2016-7 Mealeys Litig. Rep. Patents 17%20(2008)%20%22&amp;pageLimit=10&amp;pageNumber=0&amp;publication=All+Mealey+Publications%3BMEALEY%3BMEALEY&amp;relativeDateValue=NONE&amp;fromDate=&amp;toDate=&amp;loc=mealeysrss</feedburner:origLink></item>
                         
</channel>

</rss>
