<?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; supreme court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://netlaw.robertlink.org/tag/supreme-court/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

