<?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>IP/Internet/New Media Blog &#187; Patent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netlaw.robertlink.org/category/patent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://netlaw.robertlink.org</link>
	<description>blog for intellectual property, internet, and social media law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:51:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Rules Against Expansion of Business-Method Patents</title>
		<link>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/06/28/supreme-court-rules-against-expansion-of-business-method-patents/</link>
		<comments>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/06/28/supreme-court-rules-against-expansion-of-business-method-patents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>galengentry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netlaw.robertlink.org/?p=296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court ruled that two inventors&#8217; patent of a method of hedging weather-related risk in energy prices may not be granted. The high court unanimously agreed with a lower-court ruling that said a process is eligible for a patent only if it is &#8220;tied to a particular machine or apparatus&#8221; or if it &#8220;transforms a particular [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div><span style="font-size: x-small;">The Supreme Court ruled that two inventors&#8217; patent of a method of hedging weather-related risk in energy prices may not be granted. The high court unanimously agreed with a lower-court ruling that said a process is eligible for a patent only if it is &#8220;tied to a particular machine or apparatus&#8221; or if it &#8220;transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.&#8221;</span></div>
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;">The justices agreed with an appeals court that the method was too abstract to be patented. The Supreme Court used a different analysis to reach that conclusion, disagreeing with the legal test used by the lower court.   Read the Wall Street Journal <a href="http://wsj.com?mod=djemalertNEWS">article</a> on the court decision.</p>
<p></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/06/28/supreme-court-rules-against-expansion-of-business-method-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States Patent Office To Advertise For Employees In Playboy</title>
		<link>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/04/01/united-states-patent-office-to-advertise-for-employees-in-playboy/</link>
		<comments>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/04/01/united-states-patent-office-to-advertise-for-employees-in-playboy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>galengentry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://netlaw.robertlink.org/?p=253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Patent Office issued a press release today stating that henceforth it would seek patent examiners by running ads in Playboy.  The Office went on to state that rumors that everything worth inventing had been invented now that the ipad was a reality were in fact true.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The United States Patent Office issued a press release today stating that henceforth it would seek patent examiners by running ads in Playboy.  The Office went on to state that rumors that everything worth inventing had been invented now that the ipad was a reality were in fact true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://netlaw.robertlink.org/2010/04/01/united-states-patent-office-to-advertise-for-employees-in-playboy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

