<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>












<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel>
        <link>http://news.cnet.com/8300-13796_3-79.html</link>
        <title>BLIP: Blogging Patents   </title>
        <language>en-us</language>
        <description>Michael Valek, Chris Ryan, and Matt Wermager are lawyers with the firm of firm of Vinson &amp; Elkins LLP. Here, they discuss recent developments in our intellectual property system, the role the law plays to encourage innovation, as well as why any or all of this should matter to the rest of us.</description>
        
        <copyright>2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All rights reserved</copyright>
        <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
        






    
        
        
    

    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
            
        
    




    

    


            <item>
                <title>Supreme Court grants victory to Quanta in patent case</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9963116-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            U.S. high court hands a big win to Quanta Computer in ruling that the doctrine of patent exhaustion bars LG Electronics&#039; claims against the company.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9963116-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2008 15:21:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Michael Valek</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    

    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
            
        
    




    

    


            <item>
                <title>Helping patent examiners examine patents</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9953473-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            A yearlong pilot project allows the public to comment on and submit prior art relevant to patent applications.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9953473-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 09:22:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Matt Wermager</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>Adidas wins big in trademark dispute</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9938570-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            On Monday, an Oregan jury returned a verdict for Adidas awarding it damages of almost $305,000,000 in a trademark dispute against Kansas-based Collective Brands Inc., which operates Payless ShoeSource.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9938570-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 09:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Michael Valek</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>Reply to Mr. Ohman concerning patent dispute with Lance Armstrong Foundation</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9936208-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            Mr. Chris Ohman expressed concern about the facts presented in yesterday&#039;s posting concerning his dispute with the Lance Armstrong Foundation.  This posting is directed to the concerns he raised.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9936208-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 12:49:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Chris Ryan</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>Lance Armstrong Foundation sued by holder of design patent for BARKSTRONG pet collar</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9936209-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            In an apparent retaliatory lawsuit, Chris Ohman has sued the Lance Armstrong Foundation (&#034;LAF&#034;) for infringing a design patent to its &#034;BARKSTRONG&#034; dog collar design.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9936209-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 11:38:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Chris Ryan</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>RAMBUS:  The battle over hold-ups in industry standard setting</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9932551-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            In the past two weeks, two new decisions have issued in the Rambus line of cases.  The litigation involving Rambus&#039;s participation in standard setting for next generation DRAM technology, and Rambus&#039;s subsequent attempt to hold up the industry, has had a
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9932551-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:51:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Chris Ryan</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    

    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
            
        
    




    

    


            <item>
                <title>Quick appellate review of patent claim constructions:  Is the door opening for interlocutory appeals?</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9932249-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            The chief judge of the Federal Circuit cautions that lawyers should not automatically assume that the Federal Circuit will refuse to to hear every interlocutory appeal of a claim construction opinion.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9932249-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:47:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Michael Valek</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>A unique brand of monopoly</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9930778-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            The monopoly granted in the patent world is a little different than what most people consider to be a monopoly
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9930778-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Matt Wermager</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    

    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
            
        
    




    

    


            <item>
                <title>Aristocrat case raises requirements for means-plus-function software patent claims</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9919143-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            The Federal Circuit&#039;s recent decision in Aristocrat Technologies will require software patent drafters to take more care to describe algorithms covered by their software--or risk patent invalidity.
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9919143-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:58:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Chris Ryan</dc:creator>
            </item>
        






    
        
        
    


        
            
                
                
            
        
    




    


            <item>
                <title>Should software patents have shorter life spans than other patents?</title>
                <link>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9917345-79.html?part=rss&amp;tag=feed&amp;subj=BLIP:BloggingPatents</link>
                <description>
                    
                            Does the standard 20 years from the date of filing patent lifespan make sense for software patents?
                        
                </description>
                <guid isPermaLink="false">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13796_3-9917345-79.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:41:00 PDT</pubDate>
                <dc:creator>Michael Valek</dc:creator>
            </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>
