<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>From Vegas To Legal &#187; patent</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reguligence.biz/category/patent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reguligence.biz</link>
	<description>Your update on intellectual property, information technology and regulatory matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:43:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='reguligence.biz' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://reguligence.biz/osd.xml" title="From Vegas To Legal" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://reguligence.biz/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook granted a dubious patent</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[#7669123]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiply.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newsfeed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obvious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The readers of the Reguligence Weblog are familiar with the fact that I am not a supporter of software and business method patents. Moreover, I am rather a doubter as to those patents&#8217; furtherance to the Information Technology at all. Nevertheless, I should be grateful to Facebook for giving me an occasion to have another [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=415&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/02/26/facebook-granted-a-dubious-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beware of the spirits that you call: Microsoft hit by a US software patent</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/04/beware-of-the-spirits-that-you-call-microsoft-hit-by-a-us-software-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/04/beware-of-the-spirits-that-you-call-microsoft-hit-by-a-us-software-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 09:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer related patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Micorsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to a verdict issued by a jury at the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal District has affirmed , Microsoft had infringed a patent owned by I4I Limited Partnership and Infrastructures for Information Inc. The patent is with regard to &#8220;a method for [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=299&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/04/beware-of-the-spirits-that-you-call-microsoft-hit-by-a-us-software-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Federal Circuit invalidates business method patent on obviousness</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/13/the-federal-circuit-invalidates-business-method-patent-on-obiousness/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/13/the-federal-circuit-invalidates-business-method-patent-on-obiousness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:55:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lack of invetnive step]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent patent infringement case, the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit decided that claimant&#8217;s patent claims were infringed, but invalid as the Court held them obvious and thus non-inventive. Claimant&#8217;s alleged invention claimed a &#8220;method of purchasing goods or services over a data network&#8221;. In fact the claimed invention offered an [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=269&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/13/the-federal-circuit-invalidates-business-method-patent-on-obiousness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Re Bilski: a setback for business method and software patents?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/02/in-re-bilski-a-setback-for-business-method-and-software-patents/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/02/in-re-bilski-a-setback-for-business-method-and-software-patents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:55:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In Re Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[software patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warsaw]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In October 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision in re Bilski en banc, describing it as &#8220;an historic opportunity to fix the US patent system, as the Bilski rehearing will directly address the boundaries of the subject matter of patents.&#8221; The re Bilski appeal arose from the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=258&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/12/02/in-re-bilski-a-setback-for-business-method-and-software-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Microsoft found liable of infringing chinese patent</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/18/microsoft-found-liable-of-infringing-chinese-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/18/microsoft-found-liable-of-infringing-chinese-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/microsoft-found-liable-of-infringing-chinese-patent</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I bet that President Obama did not like this message during his visit in the People&#8217;s Rebulic. According to the news reporting, Obama has again been pressing China to enforce its law on intellectual property more vigorously. And so did the chinese judicateure &#8211; this time against one of the world&#8217;s largest beneficiaries in terms [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=39&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/18/microsoft-found-liable-of-infringing-chinese-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>What to avoid for your successfull patenting of a method for playing golf</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/28/what-to-avoid-for-your-successfull-patenting-of-a-method-for-playing-golf/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/28/what-to-avoid-for-your-successfull-patenting-of-a-method-for-playing-golf/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 09:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non patentable subject matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[playing games]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us pto]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.wordpress.com/2009/09/28/what-to-avoid-for-your-successfull-patenting-of-a-method-for-playing-golf</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes, this article regards the story of a US case decision. Frankly, where else the Patent and Trademark Office, but also several courts would spend time and effort to examine the application for a method of playing games &#8211; a subject matter clearly excluded under the European Patent Convention and its underlying jurisdictions. Court of [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=29&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/28/what-to-avoid-for-your-successfull-patenting-of-a-method-for-playing-golf/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>