<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Law Blog &#124; HDP Magazine by Harness Dickey&#187; Bilski</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hdp.com/category/bilski/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hdp.com</link>
	<description>Official blog by Harness Dickey, an international and full-service intellectual property legal firm with four locations in the US. Get up-to-date IP info here!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:44:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>THE ORAL ARGUMENT IN MYRIAD, April 4th, 2011</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/the-oral-argument-in-myriad-april-4th-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/the-oral-argument-in-myriad-april-4th-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 16:46:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amicus Brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Association of American Pathology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biogenerator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elan Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gilead Sciences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HDP Patent Attorneys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Myriad]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Monday, April 4, 2011 a long line of lawyers and interested parties waited to enter the Federal Circuit to hear the much anticipated oral arguments in The Association of American Pathology v. Myriad.  Amongst them were HDP patent attorneys, who filed an Amicus Brief in the Appeal. BACKGROUND: The case is an Appeal from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/the-oral-argument-in-myriad-april-4th-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bilski’s Claims Unpatentable Abstract Ideas; Machine-or-Transformation a Useful, Not Exclusive Test for Patentable Subject Matter</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-update-analysis-june-30-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-update-analysis-june-30-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Anna M. Budde</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited (oral arguments were November 9, 2009) decision in Bilski v. Kappos. The Court affirmed the rejection of Mr. Bilski's claims, which were directed to methods of hedging against a risk of price changes for a commodity, as an unpatentable abstract idea.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-update-analysis-june-30-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bilski loses, but business methods live to fight another day</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-loses-but-business-methods-live-to-fight-another-day/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-loses-but-business-methods-live-to-fight-another-day/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:51:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Stobbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=989</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the long-awaited Bilski v Kappos case. The outcome? Bernard Bilski will not be receiving a patent on his method of hedging risk. Software patents and business method patents have not been outlawed. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has again been rebuffed; it’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/bilski-loses-but-business-methods-live-to-fight-another-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s The Network</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/its-the-network/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/its-the-network/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 21:18:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Stobbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Scott C. Harris was all set to go eBay one better, with his &#8220;Real Time Auction with End Game.&#8221; Bidders would use their computers to submit their bids in secret, along with times when those bids should be executed. An agent-based system submitted those bids at the appointed time and then when the agent sensed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/its-the-network/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex parte Cherian – and the misguided software per se rejection</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/ex-parte-charian-%e2%80%93-and-the-misguided-software-per-se-rejection/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/ex-parte-charian-%e2%80%93-and-the-misguided-software-per-se-rejection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Stobbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How do you check compliance with a standard, without making reference to the standard? The applicants in Ex parte Cherian purportedly figured that out, but were denied a patent by the BPAI because their system claim was deemed non-statutory software per se. Ex parte Cherian, (BPAI 2009). In this case, Cherian and his co-inventor Damodaran-Kamal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/bilski/ex-parte-charian-%e2%80%93-and-the-misguided-software-per-se-rejection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

