<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2-ppt DokuWiki" -->
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.patentblurb.com/lib/exe/css.php?s=feed" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/feed.php">
        <title>PatentBlurb</title>
        <description></description>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/</link>
        <image rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/lib/images/favicon.ico" />
       <dc:date>2010-09-06T11:10:47-06:00</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=start&amp;rev=1281715351&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=index:start&amp;rev=1273623583&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:procedural:preliminary_matters&amp;rev=1269879101&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:amici_briefs&amp;rev=1268715347&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:start&amp;rev=1268710914&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:contributory_infringement&amp;rev=1268536917&amp;do=diff"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:infringement&amp;rev=1268514812&amp;do=diff"/>
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    <image rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/lib/images/favicon.ico">
        <title>PatentBlurb</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/</link>
        <url>http://www.patentblurb.com/lib/images/favicon.ico</url>
    </image>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=start&amp;rev=1281715351&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-08-13T10:02:31-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>start</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=start&amp;rev=1281715351&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>En banc denied in Boehringer - § 121 double patenting safe harbor maintained (05/07/10)


The CAFC recently [denied] a motion for an en banc rehearing of the [previous decision] by the CAFC, which upheld the safe harbor provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 121.  In this case, of a related set of three patent applications the patentee's first application was subject to a ten-way restriction by the PTO.  In two subsequent divisionals, the patentee included multiple patentably distinct inventions set forth in…</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=index:start&amp;rev=1273623583&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-05-11T18:19:43-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>index:start</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=index:start&amp;rev=1273623583&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>*  General Legal
		*  Statutory Subject Matter
		*  Inventorship
		*  Infringement
			*   Contributory/Joint Infringement
			*   Willfulness

		*   Claim construction
			*  Doctrine of Claim Differentiation
			*  Means-plus-function
			*   Doctrine of Equivalence</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:procedural:preliminary_matters&amp;rev=1269879101&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-03-29T10:11:41-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>legal:procedural:preliminary_matters</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:procedural:preliminary_matters&amp;rev=1269879101&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>Fed. Cir. denies standing to non-licensee (09/22/07)


In  Morrow v. Microsoft,  the Fed. Cir. upheld the district court's ruling in favor of a motion for summary judgment filed by Microsoft that Morrow lacked standing to sue Microsoft on behalf of the General Unsecured Creditors' Liquidating Trust (GUCLT) because the GUCLT was assigned only the rights to sue under a bankruptcy settlement, not the patent title or an exclusive license.  Stated the court:  “The problem for GUCLT and AHLT [the pate…</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:amici_briefs&amp;rev=1268715347&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-03-15T22:55:47-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:amici_briefs</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:amici_briefs&amp;rev=1268715347&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>On Merits
[PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF][2up][bk][PDF]</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:start&amp;rev=1268710914&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-03-15T21:41:54-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:start</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:statutory_subject_matter:bilski:start&amp;rev=1268710914&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>SUPREME COURT

Oral Arguments

	*  [Nov. 9, 2009 Transcript] 

Amici Briefs

	*  amici_briefs ~TODORED~

Case Summary







This case is an appeal from a BPAI ruling (see below) finding the claims to be nonstatutory methods under 35 U.S.C. §101.  The Examiner rejected the case because the claims were directed “solely to an abstract idea and solve[...] a purely mathematical problem without practical application in the technological arts.”  The BPAI disagreed with the Examiner's reasoning but uph…</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:contributory_infringement&amp;rev=1268536917&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-03-13T20:21:57-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>legal:contributory_infringement</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:contributory_infringement&amp;rev=1268536917&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>Evidence supporting inducement to infringe insufficient to survive MSJ (09/22/07)


In [BMC Resources v. Paymentech],  the Fed. Cir. upheld the district court's ruling in favor of a MSJ of non-infringement in a classic joint infringement scenario.  The parties agreed that Paymentech did not perform every step in the claimed method.  In its ruling, the Fed. Cir. clarified its ruling in On Demand , stating, that ”On Demand primarily addressed the claim construction issue that governed the outcome …</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:infringement&amp;rev=1268514812&amp;do=diff">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2010-03-13T14:13:32-06:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Len</dc:creator>
        <title>legal:infringement</title>
        <link>http://www.patentblurb.com/doku.php?id=legal:infringement&amp;rev=1268514812&amp;do=diff</link>
        <description>And the winner is.... (06/16/07)

The IPO is reporting that the central district of California had the most patent suits initiated in 2006 with 289 cases, followed closely by the eastern district of Texas with 262 and then the northern district of California with a 174.</description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>
