<?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; HD Signals</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hdp.com/category/hd-signals/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>ADAPTING TO PATENT REFORM</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/adapting-to-patent-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/adapting-to-patent-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 17:08:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1386</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent &#8220;Reform&#8221; &#8212; the America Invents Act &#8212; which is being implemented over the next eighteen months, makes significant changes to America&#8217;s patent system that will require business to adapt their procedures for evaluating and protecting their innovations.  Here are ten suggestions for handling the transition: 1. File patent applications on all existing innovations before March [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/adapting-to-patent-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO PROPOSES AMENDING RULE 1.56 TO DEFINE MATERIALITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THERASENSE</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-proposes-amending-rule-1-56-to-define-materiality-in-accordance-with-therasense/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-proposes-amending-rule-1-56-to-define-materiality-in-accordance-with-therasense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Becton Dickinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 56]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On July 21, 2011 the USPTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Rule 56 (37 CFR §1.56) to define materiality in accordance with the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in as the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson &#38; Co., &#8212; F.3d. &#8212; (Fed. Cir. 2011).  A similar [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/uspto-proposes-amending-rule-1-56-to-define-materiality-in-accordance-with-therasense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Launch of .XXX Domain Names – Blocking Registration of Trademarks as Domains</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/launch-of-xxx-domain-names-%e2%80%93-blocking-registration-of-trademarks-as-domains/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/launch-of-xxx-domain-names-%e2%80%93-blocking-registration-of-trademarks-as-domains/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:09:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Summary: This September, the new .XXX registry will begin accepting registrations and protection against registrations, that is, requests to block registration of non-adult industry trademarks as domains (example: blocking registration of HDP.xxx). As with most extension launches, applications will be accepted in stages called sunrises, with priority depending on the applicants’ trademark rights or rights [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/launch-of-xxx-domain-names-%e2%80%93-blocking-registration-of-trademarks-as-domains/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, U.S., No. 10-290 (June 9, 2011).</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/microsoft-corp-v-i4i-limited-partnership-u-s-no-10-290-june-9-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/microsoft-corp-v-i4i-limited-partnership-u-s-no-10-290-june-9-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:14:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a clear and convincing standard for proving a patent invalid, whether or not the evidence had been considered by the patent examiner. Before the Patent Act of 1952, the Court required clear and convincing evidence of invalidity. Radio Corp. of America v. Radio Engineering Laboratories, Inc., 293 U.S. 1 (1934) [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/microsoft-corp-v-i4i-limited-partnership-u-s-no-10-290-june-9-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stanford v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/stanford-v-roche-molecular-systems-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/stanford-v-roche-molecular-systems-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2011 14:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1248</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Stanford v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 U.S. &#8212; (2011), the Supreme Court, in its second patent case in a week, held that the Bayh-Dole Act does not automatically vest title to federally-funded inventions in federal contractors or authorize contractors to unilaterally take title to such inventions.   In a case widely discussed at the time, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/stanford-v-roche-molecular-systems-inc/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA – The Supreme Court Addresses Inducement of Patent Infringement</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/global-tech-appliances-inc-v-seb-sa-%e2%80%93-the-supreme-court-addresses-inducement-of-patent-infringement/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/global-tech-appliances-inc-v-seb-sa-%e2%80%93-the-supreme-court-addresses-inducement-of-patent-infringement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2011 19:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global-Tech Appliances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc. v. SEB SA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB SA, the Supreme Court held that inducement of infringement under 35 USC 271(B) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement. This means that the alleged inducer must know (1) that the patent exists and (2) that the induced acts constitute infringement of that patent. The Supreme Court’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/global-tech-appliances-inc-v-seb-sa-%e2%80%93-the-supreme-court-addresses-inducement-of-patent-infringement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Therasense’s Stringent Inequitable Conduct Test</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/therasense%e2%80%99s-stringent-inequitable-conduct-test/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/therasense%e2%80%99s-stringent-inequitable-conduct-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 18:08:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., Nos. 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595  (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2011). Determined to end overuse of inequitable conduct charges, the en banc Therasense court tightened the doctrine, abolishing the “sliding scale” rule and requiring an accused infringer to prove both materiality and intent by clear and convincing evidence.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/therasense%e2%80%99s-stringent-inequitable-conduct-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Overturns Precedential BPAI Opinion, Allows Reissue Only to Add Dependent Claims</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/federal-circuit-overturns-precedential-bpai-opinion-allows-reissue-only-to-add-dependent-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/federal-circuit-overturns-precedential-bpai-opinion-allows-reissue-only-to-add-dependent-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:57:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Anna M. Budde</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1167</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In re Tanaka, 2010-1262 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 15, 2011). In a battle the court joins in footnotes, adopting its own dicta, and rejecting relevance of a  Supreme Court decision from the nineteenth century to interpreting today’s reissue statute, a divided Federal Circuit panel reversed a precedential Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision and found [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/federal-circuit-overturns-precedential-bpai-opinion-allows-reissue-only-to-add-dependent-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Innovention Toys, LLC, V. MGA Entertainment, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/innovention-toys-llc-v-mga-entertainment-inc/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/innovention-toys-llc-v-mga-entertainment-inc/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 20:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[HD Signals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Innovention Toys, LLC, V. MGA Entertainment, Inc., (2010-1290) (March 21, 2011)(affirming finding of infringement but vacating and remanding summary judgment of nonobviousness because of errors in finding prior art non-analogous and in setting the level of skill in the art too low) (Lourie, J.).         The claims covered a chess-like board game. Laser beams are deflected [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/hd-signals/innovention-toys-llc-v-mga-entertainment-inc/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

