<?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 2013</dc:rights>
    <dc:date>2013-05-22T20:17:43+00:00</dc:date>
    <admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://expressionengine.com/" />
    

    <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>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Patent Law Treaties Implementation Legislation Goes to President’s Desk for Signature</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/patent_law_treaties_implementation_legislation_goes_to_presidents_desk_for/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/patent_law_treaties_implementation_legislation_goes_to_presidents_desk_for/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012 || 
              The House of Representatives has passed legislation authored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D&#45;Vt.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R&#45;Iowa) to implement two patent law treaties that will help American businesses expand into foreign markets, sending the bill to the White House for signature.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-12-13T01:25:28+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re EMC Corp.: Federal Circuit Establishes Logical Relationship Test for Joinder</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_emc_corp._i_federal_circuit_establishes_logical_relationship_test_fo/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_emc_corp._i_federal_circuit_establishes_logical_relationship_test_fo/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently held for the first time that mandamus was available to challenge a district court’s discretion in motions to sever and transfer. In In re EMC, the Court also found that in order to join parties, there must be a “logical relationship” between them, involving common and&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-12-12T20:51:39+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Euro Commission and the ARIPO to Form New GI Legal Framework</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/euro_commission_and_the_aripo_to_form_new_gi_legal/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/euro_commission_and_the_aripo_to_form_new_gi_legal/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Administrative Memorandum of Understanding on Co&#45;Operation Between the ARIPO and  the the European Commission || 
              The European Commission has signed in Zanzibar (Tanzania) a cooperation agreement with the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) to improve the protection of traditional agricultural products (geographical indications or &quot;GIs&quot;) in Africa. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-11-27T23:05:47+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Patent Offices of United States, Europe, and Japan Approve Trilateral Cooperation Declaration to Further Advance Patent Systems Worldwide</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/patent_offices_of_united_states_europe_and_japan_approve_trilateral_coopera/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/patent_offices_of_united_states_europe_and_japan_approve_trilateral_coopera/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || The Trilateral Co&#45;operation of the  USPTO), the EPO, and the JPO || 
              Heads of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) – collectively known as the Trilateral Offices – met in Kyoto, Japan this week to hold their annual Trilateral Conference, which marks their 30th anniversary&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-11-21T21:44:35+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Helps Expand Pro Bono Patent Assistance to Nation’s Inventors</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_helps_expand_pro_bono_patent_assistance_to_nations_inventors/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_helps_expand_pro_bono_patent_assistance_to_nations_inventors/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || USPTO’s Regional Pro Bono Programs || 
              The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced the start of two new regional pro bono patent programs in California and the District of Columbia—the result of the USPTO’s cooperative efforts with the California Lawyers for the Arts and the Federal Circuit Bar Association&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-25T23:20:53+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Proposes Updated Professional Conduct Rules</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_proposes_updated_professional_conduct_rules/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_proposes_updated_professional_conduct_rules/</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) announced today its proposal to update the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility to conform to the Model Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association (ABA), versions of which have been adopted by 49 states and the&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-18T19:19:04+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: In re Baxter Intl.: Federal Circuit Allows Patent Reexamination After a Final Court Judgment</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_baxter_intl._i_federal_circuit_allows_patent_reexamination_after_a_f/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/iin_re_baxter_intl._i_federal_circuit_allows_patent_reexamination_after_a_f/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently supported the PTO’s authority to overrule a judicial decision on patent claim validity. In In re Baxter Intl., Inc., 673 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Court upheld a PTO reexamination decision to invalidate patent claims, even though the Court previously upheld a district court’s contrary&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-12T01:29:03+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Senate Approves Legislation to Implement Patent Law Treaties</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_judiciary_committee_approves_legislation_to_implement_patent_law/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/senate_judiciary_committee_approves_legislation_to_implement_patent_law/</guid>
        <description>New Proposed Legislation || Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act  || 
              The Senate has approved by unanimous consent legislation to implement a pair of patent law treaties that will help American businesses expand into foreign markets by reducing obstacles for obtaining patent protection overseas.</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;proposed&#45;legislation</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-9T23:48:30+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO Updates Registration Examination for New Patent Practitioners</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_updates_registration_examination_for_new_patent_practitioners/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_updates_registration_examination_for_new_patent_practitioners/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Registration Examination for New Patent Practitioners  || 
              As part of a wider effort aimed at stakeholders fully benefitting from the sweeping reforms of the America Invents Act (AIA), the U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it has updated a critical examination for applicants seeking to practice in patent cases&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-5T00:27:55+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>USPTO and EPO Publish Advance Version of Cooperative Patent Classification System Ahead of January Launch</title>
    	  	    <link>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_epo_publish_advance_version_of_cooperative_patent_classification_/</link>
  	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/summary/uspto_and_epo_publish_advance_version_of_cooperative_patent_classification_/</guid>
        <description>New Statutes, Regulations and Rules || Cooperative Patent Classification || 
              The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) have announced early publication of a classification system meant to speed the patent granting process for applicants to both Offices. </description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent_new&#45;statutes&#45;regulations&#45;and&#45;rules</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-10-2T22:44:17+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    <item>
        	    	  <title>Commentary: Zoltek Corp. v. United States: Federal Circuit Revisits Case, Allows Process Patent Claim Against United States</title>
    	    
     	<link>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/izoltek_corp._v._united_states_i_federal_circuit_revisits_case_allows_proce/</link>
	    <guid>http://www.lawupdates.com/commentary/izoltek_corp._v._united_states_i_federal_circuit_revisits_case_allows_proce/</guid>
        <description>Expert Legal Commentary || By Tom Zuber and Jeff Zuber || The Federal Circuit recently reinterpreted its own holdings to allow process patent holders to sue the United States when part of the process occurs in a foreign country. In Zoltek Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit revisited its holding in Zoltek III and&#8230;</description>
    
      <dc:subject>patent</dc:subject>
      <dc:date>2012-09-19T00:14:24+00:00</dc:date>
    </item>

    
    </channel>
</rss>