<?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>Lawyers USA Online &#187; patent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/tag/patent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com</link>
	<description>Your Business Partner</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:39:09 +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>Supreme Court nixes human gene patents&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/13/supreme-court-nixes-human-gene-patents/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/13/supreme-court-nixes-human-gene-patents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:53:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genetic material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human genes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product of nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=93251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2013/06/dna-color.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-93149" title="dna-color" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2013/06/dna-color.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" /></a>WASHINGTON – In a decision that seemed designed to carve out a middle ground in the legal battle over whether companies can hold exclusive rights in the use of biological material, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that isolated human <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/13/supreme-court-nixes-human-gene-patents/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/06/13/supreme-court-nixes-human-gene-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court struggles with question of human gene patentability&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-struggles-with-question-of-human-gene-patentability/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-struggles-with-question-of-human-gene-patentability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genetic material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human genes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product of nature]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=92365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – Drawing a legal line to determine when human genetic material ceases to be a creation of nature and instead becomes a patentable product is not easy — even for the U.S. Supreme Court.</p> <p>During oral arguments in <em><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/11/30/patent-law-16/" target="_blank">Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,</a></em> the <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-struggles-with-question-of-human-gene-patentability/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/04/15/court-struggles-with-question-of-human-gene-patentability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Soybean seed case pits law against technology&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/19/soybean-seed-case-pits-law-against-technology/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/19/soybean-seed-case-pits-law-against-technology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-replicating]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=91424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>WASHINGTON – During arguments in a case demonstrating the ongoing tension between emerging technologies and centuries-old legal doctrines, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sought to define the limits on a farmer’s use of patented, self-replicating soybean seeds beyond a first harvest.</p> <p>The case of <em><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/05/patents-24/" target="_blank">Bowman v. <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/19/soybean-seed-case-pits-law-against-technology/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></em></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/02/19/soybean-seed-case-pits-law-against-technology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justices take up legal malpractice case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/justices-take-up-legal-malpractice-case/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/justices-take-up-legal-malpractice-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2013 23:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-10988" title="supremecourt3" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files//srv/www/lwusa/releases/20091113183021/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files//2009/12/supremecourt3.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to make a federal case out of a legal malpractice claim arising from a patent suit.</p> <p>The case of <em><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/10/court-to-consider-legal-malpractice-jurisdiction-issue/" target="_blank">Gunn v. Minton</a></em> began when securities broker Vernon <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/justices-take-up-legal-malpractice-case/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/16/justices-take-up-legal-malpractice-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Win against Apple signals more work for IP lawyers&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/03/win-against-apple-signals-more-work-for-ip-lawyers/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/03/win-against-apple-signals-more-work-for-ip-lawyers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sylvia Hsieh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Your Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=90348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-81455" title="20-Q-phone-hand" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2011/11/20-Q-phone-hand.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />In a major milestone in the smartphone patent wars, a federal jury has found that Apple Inc. infringed on three patents in its iPhone with regard to the camera feature and the handling and rejection of calls.</p> <p>The case, which was <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/03/win-against-apple-signals-more-work-for-ip-lawyers/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2013/01/03/win-against-apple-signals-more-work-for-ip-lawyers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent suit isn’t barred by prior trademark action&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/patent-suit-isnt-barred-by-prior-trademark-action/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/patent-suit-isnt-barred-by-prior-trademark-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:49:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Murphy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claim preclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=89647</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>The doctrine of claim preclusion did not apply to bar a patent infringement lawsuit based on a prior related trademark protection action, the Federal Circuit has ruled in reversing a dismissal.</p> <p>The plaintiff owned a patent for a “fully braced” telescoping strut support system for portable conveyors used to stockpile <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/patent-suit-isnt-barred-by-prior-trademark-action/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/12/04/patent-suit-isnt-barred-by-prior-trademark-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court to consider legal malpractice jurisdiction issue&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/10/court-to-consider-legal-malpractice-jurisdiction-issue/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/10/court-to-consider-legal-malpractice-jurisdiction-issue/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:01:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DC News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News from the Capitol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury and Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[This Month's Edition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=88364</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-82690" title="court" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2012/01/court.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" />The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether state law legal malpractice claims against trial lawyers for their handling of patent cases fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.</p> <p>The case involves a securities broker who developed and <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/10/court-to-consider-legal-malpractice-jurisdiction-issue/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/10/10/court-to-consider-legal-malpractice-jurisdiction-issue/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit ruling a win for biotech field&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/05/federal-circuit-ruling-a-win-for-biotech-field/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/05/federal-circuit-ruling-a-win-for-biotech-field/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Sep 2012 17:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Keen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business and Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[genetic testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=87332</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-81846" title="lab-technician" src="http://lawyersusaonline.com/files/2011/12/lab-technician.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="134" />In a second victory for the biotech industry in one year, the Federal Circuit has reinstated its ruling that a company’s isolation of human genetic material, and its process for using that material to determine the effectiveness of certain cancer therapies, <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/05/federal-circuit-ruling-a-win-for-biotech-field/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></img></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/09/05/federal-circuit-ruling-a-win-for-biotech-field/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jury awards man $2 million for creating fuel additive&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/30/jury-awards-man-2-million-for-creating-fuel-additive/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/30/jury-awards-man-2-million-for-creating-fuel-additive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:39:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Ogden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Verdicts and Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profit-sharing plan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/?p=86441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A jury has awarded $2 million to a man who developed a unique fuel additive several years ago and claimed his employer improperly phased him out of millions of dollars he was owed in a profit-sharing agreement.</p> <p>Read the full article from <em>City News Services</em>: <strong><a href="http://www.presstelegram.com/breakingnews/ci_21173235/jury-awards-man-2m-creating-fuel-additive-claims">Jury awards man $2M for <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/30/jury-awards-man-2-million-for-creating-fuel-additive/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></a></strong></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/07/30/jury-awards-man-2-million-for-creating-fuel-additive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PATENT LAW&#160;</title>
		<link>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/17/patent-law-14/</link>
		<comments>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/17/patent-law-14/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 23:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly Atkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/17/patent-law-14/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>A generic drug manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using a drug.</p> <p><em>U.S. Supreme Court. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-844.pdf">Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S</a>, No. 10-844. April <br /><a href="http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/17/patent-law-14/">&#187; Continue Reading.</a></br></em></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawyersusaonline.com/blog/2012/04/17/patent-law-14/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
