<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss 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/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

    <channel>
    
    <title>LawUpdates.com - Patent Law Updates</title>
    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com</link>
    <description />
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>LawUpdates.com, LLC</dc:creator>
    <dc:rights>Copyright 2009</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2009-06-29T18:31:19+00:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/lawupdates_patent" type="application/rss+xml" /><item>
        	    	  <title>Sen. Nelson’s Bill Benefits Generic-Drug Makers By Expanding ANDA First-Filer 180-Day Exclusivity</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/XNPFTqEPfP0/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/sen._nelsons_bill_benefits_generic-drug_makers_by_expanding_anda_first-file/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Drug Price Competition Act of 2009 || 
              Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fl., has filed a proposed legislation to amend Hatch-Waxman Act's definition of “first applicant” for abbreviated new drug application (“ANDA”) filers to give generic-drug makers challenging brand-name patents an opportunity at receiving 180-day market exclusivity.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/XNPFTqEPfP0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-06-25T17:45:13+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/sen._nelsons_bill_benefits_generic-drug_makers_by_expanding_anda_first-file/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Rep. Rush Re-Files Bill Prohibiting Reverse Payments in Patent Suits</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/V6gLH98key4/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/rep._rush_re-files_bill_prohibiting_reverse_payments_in_patent_suits/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Protecting Consumer Access to Generic Drugs Act of 2009 || 
              Rep. Bobby L. Rush, D-Il., has re-introduced on the congressional floor a bill intended to eliminate perceived anticompetitive settlements of patent infringement litigation between generic and brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturers.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/V6gLH98key4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-06-25T17:37:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/rep._rush_re-files_bill_prohibiting_reverse_payments_in_patent_suits/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re Kubin: Extending “Obvious to Try” to cDNA Sequence Patents</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/DwSyqg6I1wQ/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_kubin_i_extending_obvious_to_try_to_cdna_sequence_patents/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Yuri Mikulka and Spyros J. Lazaris || The Federal Circuit court applied the “obvious to try” test from KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. to biotechnology patent applications, and essentially eviscerated the obviousness standard once applied to biotech patents by the Federal Circuit in In re Deuel. While the decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed.…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/DwSyqg6I1wQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-06-17T17:38:57+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_kubin_i_extending_obvious_to_try_to_cdna_sequence_patents/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>AZ Sen. Kyl Files Own Version of Patent Reform Bill</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/LW1Rsnf3WgQ/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/az_sen_kyl_files_own_version_of_patent_reform_bill/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Reform Act of 2009 || 
              U.S. Senator Jon Kyl  (R-Az) has filed his own version of Patent Reform Act of 2009 (S. 610).&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/LW1Rsnf3WgQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-06-8T20:46:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/az_sen_kyl_files_own_version_of_patent_reform_bill/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Bill Bans Use of Federal Funds for Biologics</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/cjnCoDomtH8/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bill_bans_use_of_federal_funds_for_biologics/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || A bill to prohibit the use of Federal funds to approve certain biologics license applications by the FDA || 
              Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, has filed a billed that would prohibit the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) from using federal funds to process biologics license applications for products that contain certain “select agents or toxins.”&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/cjnCoDomtH8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-06-8T20:37:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bill_bans_use_of_federal_funds_for_biologics/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re Ferguson: Affirming Bilski’s Machine-or-Transformation Test</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/TUzCrOMU6J8/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_ferguson_i_affirming_ibilskis_i_machine_or_transformation_test/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Yuri Mikulka and Spyros J. Lazaris || In one of the first post-Bilski decisions by a Federal Circuit panel, the court confirmed the Bilski holding that business methods do not constitute patentable processes if they fail the machine-or-transformation test. Specifically, in In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed Cir. 2009), the Court held that the applicant’s marketing…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/TUzCrOMU6J8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-05-26T18:17:06+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_ferguson_i_affirming_ibilskis_i_machine_or_transformation_test/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Tafas v. Doll: Limits on Continuations Invalid; Other Claim Limits May Be OK</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/RKghHpfk-PI/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/itafas_v_doll_i_limits_on_continuations_invalid_other_claim_limits_may_be_o/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Yuri Mikulka and Spyros J. Lazaris || The Federal Circuit largely upheld rules promulgated by the PTO to help relieve its enormous backlog of patent applications. The district court had determined that the rules were substantive and therefore beyond the PTO’s legal authority. In Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a split Federal Circuit…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/RKghHpfk-PI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-05-18T16:58:16+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/itafas_v_doll_i_limits_on_continuations_invalid_other_claim_limits_may_be_o/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Rothman v. Target: Deferring to Jury Finding of Obviousness, But Not of Inequitable Conduct</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/d678QHzPIYc/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irothman_v_target_i_deferring_to_jury_finding_of_obviousness_but_not_of_ine/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Yuri Mikulka and Spyros J. Lazaris || In Rothman v. Target Corp., 556 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit upheld a district court’s refusal to set aside a jury finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid due to obviousness, but reversed the trial court on its finding of inequitable conduct by the prosecuting attorney. The…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/d678QHzPIYc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-05-12T20:33:35+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/irothman_v_target_i_deferring_to_jury_finding_of_obviousness_but_not_of_ine/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Senate Committee on Judiciary Approves Patent Reform Act of 2009</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/i5YvlS6Eyw0/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_committee_on_judiciary_approves_patent_reform_act_of_2009/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Reform Act of 2009 || 
              At a business meeting held on April 2, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to report critical legislation to make reforms to the nation’s dated patent reform system.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/i5YvlS6Eyw0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-04-23T17:06:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_committee_on_judiciary_approves_patent_reform_act_of_2009/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Another Bill on Biologics Filed in Congress</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/IUsILiPFM_4/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/another_bill_on_biologics_filed_in_congress/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Pathway for Biosimilars Act || 
              Representatives Anna G. Eshoo (D – CA), Jay Inslee (D – WA), and Joe Barton (R – TX) have introduced the “Pathway for Biosimilars Act” (H.R. 1548). The bill creates a process for approval of “biosimilars” or “follow-on biologics” while protecting patient health and safety, lowering health care costs, and…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/IUsILiPFM_4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-04-13T17:48:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/another_bill_on_biologics_filed_in_congress/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Senate Judiciary Committee Inches Closer to Forging Patent Reform Agreement</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/aBqm7YBsiD0/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_judiciary_committee_inches_closer_to_forging_patent_reform_agreement/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Reform Act of 2009 || 
              The Senate Judiciary Committee continued to make progress on patent reform legislation at an executive business meeting Tuesday morning.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/aBqm7YBsiD0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-04-3T16:57:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_judiciary_committee_inches_closer_to_forging_patent_reform_agreement/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Boston Scientific v. Cordis: Obviousness from Two Separate Embodiments</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/st5X4gZbAuI/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iboston_scientific_v_cordis_i_obviousness_from_two_separate_embodiments/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier A. Taillieu and Spyros J. Lazaris || In Boston Scientific v. Cordis, 554 F.3d 982 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned both the PTO Examiner and the district court trial jury in invalidating Boston Scientific’s patent claims due to invalidity. Specifically, the appellate court determined that prior art disclosed all elements…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/st5X4gZbAuI" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-04-2T21:30:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iboston_scientific_v_cordis_i_obviousness_from_two_separate_embodiments/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Lower House Passes Legislation on Patent Litigation Training Program for District Court Judges</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/jE4ymBVz2x8/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/lower_house_passes_legislation_on_patent_litigation_training_program_for_di/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || To establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases || 
              By a vote of 409-7, the House of Representatives has passed a legislation creating a pilot program to enhance the expertise of district court judges hearing patent cases.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/jE4ymBVz2x8" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-03-30T16:32:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/lower_house_passes_legislation_on_patent_litigation_training_program_for_di/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Recent Decisions Alter Venue Strategy In Eastern District of Texas Patent Litigation</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/UFWGFeA3-7w/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/recent_decisions_alter_venue_strategy_in_eastern_district_of_texas_patent_l/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Spyros J. Lazaris || In the wake of two recent federal appeals cases -- In re Volkswagen of America Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – the Eastern District of Texas has lost some of its steam as the most…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/UFWGFeA3-7w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-03-24T19:11:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/recent_decisions_alter_venue_strategy_in_eastern_district_of_texas_patent_l/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>New Legislation Seeks to Hasten Release into the Market of Generic Biotech Drugs</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/25wg7_l8J-Y/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/new_legislation_seeks_to_hasten_release_into_the_market_of_generic_biotech_/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicine Act || 
              House Representatives Henry A. Waxman (CA), Nathan Deal (GA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ), and Jo Ann Emerson (Mo) have introduced H.R. 1427, or a bill “To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the licensing of biosimilar and biogeneric biological products, and for other purposes.”&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/25wg7_l8J-Y" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-03-13T20:18:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/new_legislation_seeks_to_hasten_release_into_the_market_of_generic_biotech_/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Bipartisan Solons Push for Patent Reform Act of 2009</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/FpSzpmfqtX0/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bipartisan_solons_push_for_patent_reform_act_of_2009/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Reform Act of 2009 || 
              Leaders of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees have introduced a bipartisan, bicameral patent reform legislation after the previous session of Congress failed to pass the 2007 version of the bill.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/FpSzpmfqtX0" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-03-5T21:24:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/bipartisan_solons_push_for_patent_reform_act_of_2009/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Issues Final Rule on Fiscal Year 2009 Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty Transmittal and Search Fees</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/_RV__gFgAJ4/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_final_rule_on_fiscal_year_2009_changes_to_patent_cooperation_t/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Fiscal Year 2009 Changes to Patent Cooperation Treaty Transmittal and Search Fees || 
              The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has announced amended the rules of practice to adjust the transmittal and search fees for international applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT").&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/_RV__gFgAJ4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-statutes-regulations-and-rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-02-5T17:46:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_final_rule_on_fiscal_year_2009_changes_to_patent_cooperation_t/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Issues Final Rules to Implement an Annual Practitioner Maintenance Fee</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/Hgqj_hswQLE/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_final_rules_to_implement_an_annual_practitioner_maintenance_fe/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Changes to Representation of Others Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office || 
              The United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") has adopted new rules governing the conduct of individuals registered to practice before the USPTO.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/Hgqj_hswQLE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-statutes-regulations-and-rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-02-3T21:31:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_issues_final_rules_to_implement_an_annual_practitioner_maintenance_fe/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Delays Effectivity  of BPAI Final Rule of Practice</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/3dHy88MZKnU/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_delays_effectivity_of_bpai_final_rule_of_practice/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Delay of Effective and Applicability Dates of BPAI Rules || 
              The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has announced that the final rule relating to practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) in ex parte appeals did not take effect on December 10, 2008 as originally scheduled. It added that new effective and applicability dates will be…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/3dHy88MZKnU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-statutes-regulations-and-rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-02-3T21:17:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_delays_effectivity_of_bpai_final_rule_of_practice/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa: No more Point of Novelty Test for Design Patent Infringement</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/CNUUQ3fmBoU/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iegyptian_goddess_v_swisa_i_no_more_point_of_novelty_test_for_design_patent/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier A. Taillieu and Spyros J. Lazaris || In its highly anticipated en banc opinion in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the point of novelty test for design patent infringement. The Court held that the “ordinary observer” test set forth in Gorham v. White…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/CNUUQ3fmBoU" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-01-13T11:09:25+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iegyptian_goddess_v_swisa_i_no_more_point_of_novelty_test_for_design_patent/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re Bilski: Business Method Patents Take a Hit; State Street Bank Is Out</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/bpKanx4WE0s/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_bilski_i_business_method_patents_take_a_hit_istate_street_bank_i_is_/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Olivier A. Taillieu and Spyros J. Lazaris || The eagerly-awaited decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) -- issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc -- significantly narrowed the scope of patentability for business method and process patents. The Court essentially discounted the applicability of State Street…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/bpKanx4WE0s" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2009-01-7T22:38:09+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_bilski_i_business_method_patents_take_a_hit_istate_street_bank_i_is_/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Another Patent Reform Bill Filed in Senate</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/B3-3ngSiOzo/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/another_patent_reform_bill_filed_in_senate/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Reform Act of 2008 || 
              After Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont filed in April 2007 a bill entitled "Patent Reform Act of 2007," Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona filed his own bill that he called "Patent Reform Act of 2008.&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/B3-3ngSiOzo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2008-12-16T00:23:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/another_patent_reform_bill_filed_in_senate/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Cohesive Technologies v. Waters: Anticipated Though Non-Obvious?</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/6_arLyCqrIs/</link>
	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/icohesive_technologies_v_waters_i_anticipated_though_non_obvious/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By  || In Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an invention may be anticipated, even though it is proven non-obvious. The Court drew a clear separating line between the novelty analysis of 35 U.S.C. section…&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/6_arLyCqrIs" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2008-12-11T20:56:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/icohesive_technologies_v_waters_i_anticipated_though_non_obvious/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>U.S. President Bush Signs IP Rights Act of 2008</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/p2ohZQYSIyQ/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/us_president_bush_signs_ip_act_of_2008/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act of 2008 ||&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/p2ohZQYSIyQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-statutes-regulations-and-rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2008-10-20T17:25:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/us_president_bush_signs_ip_act_of_2008/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Senate, House Pass Bill Providing for Stronger Protection to IP Rights</title>
    	  	    <link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~3/QKt6LAl5fvo/</link>
  	    <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_house_pass_bill_providing_for_stronger_protection_to_ip_rights/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008  ||&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/lawupdates_patent/~4/QKt6LAl5fvo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new-proposed-legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2008-10-6T18:32:00+00:00</dc:date>
    <feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_house_pass_bill_providing_for_stronger_protection_to_ip_rights/</feedburner:origLink></item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>
