<?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; Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hdp.com/category/litigation/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>Incorporation by reference does not expand claim scope</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Stobbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In those heady days of yesteryear, when the patent filing fee was $35 and prior art was printed on crumbling paper, patent attorneys relished the word “means.” They drank coffee from a “cup means,” wrote letters with a “pen means,” and played golf with “club means.” Somehow the word “means” seemed to convert mundane coffee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/tivo-inc-v-echostar-corp/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/tivo-inc-v-echostar-corp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:20:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Echostar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TiVo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[En banc Federal Circuit Modifies Standard on Findings of Contempt Regarding Permanent Injunctions; $90 million sanctions ruling against EchoStar survives over dissent. TiVo Inc. v. Echostar Corp., No. 2009-1374 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2010). The en banc Federal Circuit clarifies the “more than colorable differences” standard in contempt of noninfringement injunctions to require focus on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/tivo-inc-v-echostar-corp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>IS THE END IN SIGHT FOR PATENT MISMARKING CLAIMS?</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., [Misc. 960](March 15, 2011) the Federal Circuit granted BP Lubricant’s  Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss a complaint for false patent marking under 35 USC §292  filed against BP.   The Federal Circuit held that FRCP [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Perfecting Security Interests in Intellectual Property Is Not a Perfect Process</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/perfecting-security-interests-in-intellectual-property-is-not-a-perfect-process/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/perfecting-security-interests-in-intellectual-property-is-not-a-perfect-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:54:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robert J. Lenihan, II</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Article 9 of the UCC generally relates to secured transactions and governs the perfection of security interests in personal property.  Although the UCC does not specifically refer to patents, trademarks, or copyrights, the term “intellectual property” is provided as an example of a general intangible in the Official Comments.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/perfecting-security-interests-in-intellectual-property-is-not-a-perfect-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Improper Revival of Patent That Expired for Non-Payment of Maintenance Fees Is Not a Defense to Patent Infringement, But It Could Be Inequitable Conduct</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/improper-revival-of-patent-that-expired-for-non-payment-of-maintenance-fees-is-not-a-defense-to-patent-infringement-but-it-could-be-inequitable-conduct/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/improper-revival-of-patent-that-expired-for-non-payment-of-maintenance-fees-is-not-a-defense-to-patent-infringement-but-it-could-be-inequitable-conduct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:01:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David McClaughry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inequitable conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invalidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maintenance fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revival]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unenforceable]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=504</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Improper revival of a patent that expired for non-payment of maintenance fees can be raised as inequitable conduct, but not as grounds for invalidity. In Abstrax, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-221-DF-CE  (E.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2009) the district court adopted a magistrate’s recommendation and granted Abstrax’s motion for partial summary judgment to block Dell’s affirmative [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/improper-revival-of-patent-that-expired-for-non-payment-of-maintenance-fees-is-not-a-defense-to-patent-infringement-but-it-could-be-inequitable-conduct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Litigation Avoidance Strategy No. 1:  Better Patent Claims = Less Litigation</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/litigation-avoidance-strategy-no-1-better-patent-claims-less-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/litigation-avoidance-strategy-no-1-better-patent-claims-less-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matthew L. Cutler</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=366</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It is often a miscalculation to assume that a company’s patent attorneys can, on their own, develop patent specifications and claims that will withstand the rigors of litigation and/or prevent a competitor from getting into its business space.  Too often, patent attorneys cannot understand your business nearly as well as your inventors and/or business people.  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/litigation/litigation-avoidance-strategy-no-1-better-patent-claims-less-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

