<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">

    <channel>
    
    <title>LawUpdates.com &#45; Patent Law Updates</title>
    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com</link>
    <description></description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>LawUpdates.com, LLC</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2014</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2014-01-27T12:27:05+00:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <item>
        	    	  <title>First&#45;of&#45;Its&#45;Kind Settlement between NY and Patent Troll Establishes Guidelines to Prevent Deceptive and Exploitative Patent Assertion Conduct</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/first-of-its-kind_settlement_between_ny_and_patent_troll_establishes_guidel/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/first-of-its-kind_settlement_between_ny_and_patent_troll_establishes_guidel/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || In the Matter of the Investigation by the Attorney General of the State of New York of MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC || 
              Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has announced a groundbreaking settlement with MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, a so&#45;called “patent troll.” </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2014-01-15T13:10:36+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>House Passes Innovation Act to Make Reforms to Patent System</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/house_passes_innovation_act_to_make_reforms_to_patent/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/house_passes_innovation_act_to_make_reforms_to_patent/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || The Innovation Act || 
              The House of Representatives has approved H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 325&#45;91.  This bipartisan bill takes steps to combat the ever increasing problem of abusive patent litigation.
</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-12-10T04:12:46+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: MDS (Canada) Inc. v. RAD Source Technologies: 11th Circuit Finds Federal Circuit Does Not Have Exclusive Jurisdiction When Patents at Issue in Breach of Contract Claim</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/imds_canada_inc._v._rad_source_technologies_i_11th_circuit_finds_federa/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/imds_canada_inc._v._rad_source_technologies_i_11th_circuit_finds_federa/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || In a case of first impression, the 11th Circuit recently held that a state law claim with an underlying patent issue did not create patent jurisdiction, and thus the Federal Circuit did not have exclusive appellate jurisdiction. In MDS (Canada) Inc. v. RAD Source Technologies, Inc., No. 11&#45;15145 (11th Cir.&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-12-5T03:48:19+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Bipartisan Bill  Introduced to Protect Businesses From Patent Lawsuit Abuse</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bipartisan_bill_introduced_to_protect_businesses_from_patent_lawsuit/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bipartisan_bill_introduced_to_protect_businesses_from_patent_lawsuit/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 || 
              Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D&#45;Vt.) and Committee member Senator Mike Lee (R&#45;Utah) have joined together to introduce legislation to protect businesses and innovators who are being improperly targeted by so&#45;called “patent trolls.”</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-11-26T11:06:56+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Demand Letter Transparency Act to Tackle Growing Problem of Patent Trolls</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/demand_letter_transparency_act_to_tackle_growing_problem/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/demand_letter_transparency_act_to_tackle_growing_problem/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Demand Letter Transparency Act || 
              Representatives Jared Polis (D&#45;CO) and Tom Marino (R&#45;PA), along with Rep. Ted Deutch (D&#45;FL) have introduced the Demand Letter Transparency Act to tackle the growing problem of patent trolls. Increasingly, businesses of every size are finding themselves on the receiving end of patent infringement demand letters. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-11-22T10:42:36+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>FTC Finalizes Amendments to the Premerger Notification Rules Related to the Transfer of Exclusive Patent Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/ftc_finalizes_amendments_to_the_premerger_notification_rules_related_to_the/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/ftc_finalizes_amendments_to_the_premerger_notification_rules_related_to_the/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Amendments to the Premerger Notification Rules || 
              The Federal Trade Commission has issued final changes to the premerger notification rules that require companies in the pharmaceutical industry to report certain proposed acquisitions of exclusive patent rights to the FTC and the Department of Justice for antitrust review. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-11-20T13:54:51+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>FTC Seeks to Examine Patent Assertion Entities and Their Impact on Innovation, Competition</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/ftc_seeks_to_examine_patent_assertion_entities_and_their_impact_on_innovati/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/ftc_seeks_to_examine_patent_assertion_entities_and_their_impact_on_innovati/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Federal Register Notice Soliciting Public Comments On Proposed Information Requests To Patent Assertion Entities || 
              The Federal Trade Commission voted to seek public comments on a proposal to gather information from approximately 25 companies that are in the business of buying and asserting patents, known as Patent Assertion Entities (“PAEs”). </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-09-30T19:36:33+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: AMP v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: Unanimous Supreme Court Limits Patentability of Human Genes</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iamp_v._myriad_genetics_inc._i_unanimous_supreme_court/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iamp_v._myriad_genetics_inc._i_unanimous_supreme_court/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber, Jeff Zuber and Mark Bloomberg || In a landmark decision involving genetic testing, the Supreme Court held that simply isolating a naturally&#45;occurring gene is not patent&#45;eligible. In Assn. for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12&#45;398 (U.S. June 13, 2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that Myriad’s patents on two cancer&#45;linked genes are invalid because&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-06-27T10:21:57+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.: En Banc Federal Circuit Cements Confusion Over Patent&#45;Eligibility for Software</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibowman_v._monsanto_co._i_supreme_court_growing_patente/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibowman_v._monsanto_co._i_supreme_court_growing_patente/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently released a highly divided opinion regarding the patentability of software. In CLS Bank Intl. v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 2011&#45;1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013), the Court, sitting en banc, could not agree on how to test whether a software patent claim is too abstract to&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-06-24T02:58:17+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO and KIPO Announce Launch of Cooperative Patent Classification System Pilot</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_kipo_announce_l/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_kipo_announce_l/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Cooperative Patent Classification System Pilot || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) have announced the launch of a new pilot in which KIPO will classify some of its patent documents using the Cooperative Patent Classification system (CPC), a new classification system jointly managed&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-06-11T20:31:20+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Bowman v. Monsanto Co.: Growing Patented Soybeans for Replanting is Infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibowman_v._monsanto_co._i_growing_patented_soybeans_for_replanting_is/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ibowman_v._monsanto_co._i_growing_patented_soybeans_for_replanting_is/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Supreme Court recently held that a farmer could not make copies of a patented soybean by purchasing harvested beans and planting them. In Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11&#45;796 (U.S. Feb. 19, 2013), a unanimous Supreme Court held that such activity fell outside the doctrine of patent exhaustion, which&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-05-31T20:53:29+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary:  Gunn, et al., v. Minton: Supreme Court Denies Federal Jurisdiction for Patent&#45;Related Malpractice Suit</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/i_gunn_et_al._v._minton_isupreme_court_denies_federal_jurisdictio/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/i_gunn_et_al._v._minton_isupreme_court_denies_federal_jurisdictio/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || A unanimous Supreme Court held that a state legal malpractice claim involving a patent issue did not “arise under” federal patent law, and thus did not belong in federal court. In Gunn, et al., v. Minton, No. 11&#45;1118 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2013), the Court found that while resolution of a&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-05-14T00:26:26+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Hall v. Bed Bath &amp; Beyond: Federal Circuit Rejects District Court’s Pleading Standards for Design Patent Infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ihall_v._bed_bath_beyond_i_federal_circuit_rejects_district_courts_pleading/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ihall_v._bed_bath_beyond_i_federal_circuit_rejects_district_courts_pleading/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently allowed several design patent infringement&#45;related claims to go forward after reversing a district court’s complete dismissal. In Hall v. Bed Bath &amp; Beyond Procurement Co. Inc., 2011&#45;1165, 2011&#45;1235 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 25, 2013), the Court sided mostly with plaintiff/inventor, who alleged patent infringement against Bed Bath&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-05-8T18:16:04+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Arkema  v. Honeywell Intl.: Federal Circuit Explains MedImmune Standard for Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Involving Indirect Patent Infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iarkema_v._honeywell_intl._i_federal_circuit_explains_medimmune/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iarkema_v._honeywell_intl._i_federal_circuit_explains_medimmune/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently interpreted the Supreme Court’s MedImmune standard for declaratory judgment jurisdiction involving alleged indirect patent infringement. In Arkema, Inc. v. Honeywell Intl., Inc., 2012&#45;1308 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2013), the Federal Circuit found that several elements demanded by the district court, such as accusations of direct infringement&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-05-1T19:11:45+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Strong Growth in Demand for Intellectual Property Rights in 2012 – WIPO</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/strong_growth_in_demand_for_intellectual_property_rights/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/strong_growth_in_demand_for_intellectual_property_rights/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || WIPO PR/2013/732 || 
              International filings for patents, trademarks and industrial designs under WIPO&#45;administered intellectual property (IP) systems saw continued strong growth in 2012, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-04-10T22:35:55+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Updates Professional Conduct Rules and Registration Examination for Patent Attorneys</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_updates_professional_conduct_rules_and_registrati/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_updates_professional_conduct_rules_and_registrati/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Changes to Representation of Others Before The United States Patent and Trademark Office || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced updates to the registration examination and significant changes to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (USPTO Rules), which govern practitioners who practice before the USPTO.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-04-4T18:10:19+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Expanded SHIELD Act Filed to Combat Patent Trolls</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/expanded_shield_act_filed_to_combat_patent_trolls/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/expanded_shield_act_filed_to_combat_patent_trolls/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Saving High&#45;Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 || 
              Representatives Peter DeFazio (D&#45;OR) and Jason Chaffetz (R&#45;UT) have introduced HR 845, the bipartisan Saving High&#45;tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act to protect American innovators and companies from frivolous patent lawsuits that cost jobs and resources. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-03-6T19:39:52+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: America Invents Act: First&#45;to&#45;File Priority for Patent Applications Begins March 16</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/america_invents_act_first-to-file_begins/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/america_invents_act_first-to-file_begins/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber, Jeff Zuber and Mark Bloomberg || The Leahy&#45;Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) will be fully implemented on March 16, 2013. Since its passage, the provisions of the AIA have come into effect in stages. The important first&#45;to&#45;file change takes effect on patent applications filed after March 16. As first&#45;to&#45;file replaces the current first&#45;to&#45;invent regime, inventors must&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-02-25T20:20:17+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Publishes Final Rules and Guidelines Governing First&#45;Inventor&#45;to&#45;File</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_publishes_final_rules_and_guidelines_governing_first-inventor-to-file/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_publishes_final_rules_and_guidelines_governing_first-inventor-to-file/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Changes to Implement First Inventor to File Provisions of Leahy&#45;Smith America Invents Act || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published final rules of practice implementing the first&#45;inventor&#45;to&#45;file provision of the Leahy&#45;Smith America Invents Act (AIA).</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-02-13T21:15:00+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Edwards Lifesciences v. Corevalve: Federal Circuit Sides Strongly with Prevailing Plaintiffs Seeking Injunctions</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iedwards_lifesciences_v._corevalve_i_federal_circuit_sides_strongly_with_pr/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iedwards_lifesciences_v._corevalve_i_federal_circuit_sides_strongly_with_pr/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit has created some ambiguity regarding its propensity to issue permanent injunctions to prevailing plaintiffs. In Edwards Lifesciences AG v. Corevalve, Inc., 2011&#45;1215 and 2011&#45;1257, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2012), the Court stated that such plaintiffs may “normally expect” the issuance of a permanent injunction, absent adverse equitable&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-02-5T23:32:28+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Seeking Comments on Matters Related to the Harmonization of Substantive Patent Law</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_seeking_comments_on_matters_related_to_the_harmonization_of_substanti/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_seeking_comments_on_matters_related_to_the_harmonization_of_substanti/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Notice of Public Hearing and Request for Comments on Matters Related to the Harmonization of Substantive Patent Law || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking stakeholder input on matters relating to international harmonization of substantive patent law.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-02-1T22:04:04+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Releases New Patent Term Calculator</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_releases_new_patent_term_calculator/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_releases_new_patent_term_calculator/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Quick Guide to Locating Patent Term Information on the USPTO Web Site: New Patent Term Calculator || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the release of a new calculator that enables members of the public to estimate the expiration date of a utility, plant, or design patent.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-01-31T18:00:47+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Fox Group, Inc. v. CREE, Inc.: Federal Circuit Allows Prior Inventor to Invalidate Patent with Single Iteration of Practice and Minimal Disclosure</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ifox_group_inc._v._cree_inc._i/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/ifox_group_inc._v._cree_inc._i/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit has made it easier for prior inventors to invalidate an existing patent. In Fox Group, Inc. v. CREE, Inc., 2011&#45;1576, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 28, 2012), the Court invalidated two major claims in an existing product patent as a prior inventor was able to prove reduction to practice&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-01-18T23:37:13+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Revision Military  v. Balboa Manufacturing: Patent Infringement Preliminary Injunctions Must Use Federal Circuit Law</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irevision_military_v._balboa_manufacturing_i_patent_infringement_preliminar/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irevision_military_v._balboa_manufacturing_i_patent_infringement_preliminar/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently clarified that district courts should not employ their own circuit’s standard for a preliminary injunction when dealing with patent infringement cases. In Revision Military, Inc. v. Balboa Manufacturing Co., 2011&#45;1628 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 27, 2012), the Court held that a district court’s use of the Second&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-01-15T01:39:52+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO and EPO Launch Cooperative Patent Classification System</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_epo_launch_cooperative_patent_classification_sys/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_epo_launch_cooperative_patent_classification_sys/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || USPTO&#45;EPO Cooperative Patent Classification System || 
              The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have announced the formal launch of the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, a global classification system for patent documents.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2013-01-7T13:17:32+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>