﻿<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="rss.xsl.aspx?id=20"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Intellectual Property Alerts</title>
    <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/</link>
    <description>Haynes and Boone alerts for the Intellectual Property Practice</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright />
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:15:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 08:15:03 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>The Supreme Court Rules on Bilski: Business Method Patents Survive</title>
      <description>On June 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision on Bilski v. Kappos regarding what inventions are eligible for patent protection. The decision affirms that business methods are patentable, although the specific business methods at the center of the case are not.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/The_Supreme_Court_Rules_on_Bilski</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>26d908f4-12d9-432c-9e78-833ce32adf09</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Accelerated Patent Examination Plan Extended</title>
      <description>Most patent applicants can now accelerate the examination of a select number of patent applications in exchange for abandoning an equal number of unexamined, pending applications, according to an announcement issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on June 24, 2010. The PTO’s official notice, titled “Expansion and Extension of the Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan” (the “Plan”), eliminates the requirement whereby only small entity applicants could participate in the Plan.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Accelerated_Patent_Examination_Plan_Extended</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>64079395-dc0b-406c-b2eb-b17ec5b9ed74</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Proposes Three-Track Patent Examination Initiative</title>
      <description>The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is seeking public comment on a proposed three-track patent examination initiative that would provide applicants with greater control over the speed at which their applications are examined.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/US_Patent_Office_Proposes</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>a7633d72-5fa0-456e-91c6-4b57534b2a7a</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>To Have Committed Inequitable Conduct or Not?  That is the Question - to be Answered</title>
      <description>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all U.S. patent infringement appeals, issued an order on April 26, 2010 requesting briefs from the parties in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, and Co. (appeal no. 2008-1511) to consider en banc the standards by which courts should find “inequitable conduct.”</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Inequitable_Conduct_Therasense</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>f688b14c-46a4-45a8-8eb6-0e625dcc9e4f</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Management (and the Federal Circuit) Torched Our Patent: What Should We Have Done Differently?</title>
      <description>Just one day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that it would consider the current state of the inequitable conduct doctrine en banc in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson and Co., a split panel of the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the case of Avid Identification Systems, Inc. v. Crystal Import Corp. affirming a lower court’s finding of inequitable conduct.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Management_Torched_Our_Patent</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>d68b72fe-7914-42ca-99bf-063d110c0b1d</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>United States Patent and Trademark Office Rules on Deposing Non-U.S. Resident Executives in Trademark Proceedings</title>
      <description>A recent ruling should provide some comfort for non-U.S. companies involved in U.S. trademark oppositions or cancellations. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has clarified that companies with no U.S. operations cannot easily be forced to travel to the U.S. for oral depositions.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/USPTO_Rules_on_Deposing</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>4e2189a1-f18c-4433-b217-86f14df80648</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Google AdWords Decision Issued by the European Court of Justice</title>
      <description>The European Court of Justice ruled this week that Google did not infringe trademark rights by letting advertisers purchase keywords corresponding to their competitors’ trademarks in Google’s AdWords program.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Google_Adwords_Decision</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>ca5aac26-6296-496f-8448-4243624ba165</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Innovation Fee: Surcharge on U.S. Patent &amp; Trademark Protection</title>
      <description>The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) announced that, as part of President Obama’s recently proposed budget for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, the PTO’s budget would be $2.322 billion, a 23 percent increase over FY 2010.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Innovation_Fee</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>3be75d6c-6904-4cee-8e75-3d6f41ac0274</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>USPTO’s Interim Procedures for Patent Term Adjustment under Wyeth</title>
      <description>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is modifying the computer program it uses to calculate Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) in light of the recent decision in Wyeth v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010).</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/USPTOs_Interim_Procedures</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>a4d9da66-0d2f-428e-8daa-e1760e175124</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Another Detour? Steer Internet Traffic to Your Sites by Registering .CO Domains</title>
      <description>In what may be a new opportunity for cybersquatters, the Colombian .CO registry will soon allow for registration of domain names ending in simply .CO. Such domain names may be a prime platform for social networking sites and brand owners. As the registry explains, the acronym .CO can be associated with terms that include company, corporation, commerce, communities, content, connect, communication, collaborate, and consumers.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Steer_Internet_Traffic</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>a1afc523-82f9-45ea-b776-0266a52808c7</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Litigation Risk and Liability Danger from False Patent Marking in View of Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.</title>
      <description>In a case arising from the Southern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit recently issued an opinion that highlights the risks associated with marking products with patent numbers. See Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. 2009-1044 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2009) (slip opinion).&amp;nbsp;</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Litigation_Risk_and_Liability_Danger</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>6f217d7d-c7ca-439d-a4f3-dcc7de627c72</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The IP Beacon, January 2010</title>
      <description />
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/The_IP_Beacon_January_2010</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>0b198fd0-c1d3-4d8e-b28c-a09b7f3b3981</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Jumpstart Your Patent Application Through Early Examination</title>
      <description>The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) published an official notice titled “Patent Application Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan” on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 that it will now advance applications out of turn for small entity patent applicants on a temporary basis (74 Fed. Reg. 62,285).</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Jumpstart_Your_Patent_Application</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>26994d3b-961e-4a7c-a235-cf111a7b3747</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PTO Seeking Rulemaking Authority Despite Rescinding Proposed Claims and Continuation Rules</title>
      <description>The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) has announced that the director has signed a Final Rule, which has not yet been published, that rescinds the hotly contested proposed claims and continuation rules. These rules would primarily have limited the number of patent applicant filings of: (i) continuation applications, (ii) Requests for Continued Examination (“RCEs”), and (iii) claims without examination support documents (“ESDs”) within a single application. The proposed rules were at the heart of a two-year legal battle that pitted co-plaintiffs Triantafyllos Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) against the PTO and its director.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/PTO_rulemaking_authority_claims_continuations_rules</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>4a1f5ebb-e331-4459-a126-c94800fbcdc0</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The IP Beacon, October 2009</title>
      <description>The IP Beacon is a quarterly newsletter prepared by the Haynes and Boone Intellectual Property Practice to inform clients and friends of trends and changes in intellectual property law.</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/The_IP_Beacon_October_2009</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>5bc5e1fd-b408-43ea-8f6a-8df7cbf5902e</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Software Licenses: Permission vs. Forgiveness and the Law of Unintended Consequences</title>
      <description>In a case that may prove to be as serendipitous for struggling software companies as anything else, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit wrote another chapter in the law of unintended consequences with its ruling in Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp. (published September 25, 2009 pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206: File Name: 09a0346p.06).</description>
      <link>http://www.haynesboone.com/Software_Licenses_Permission_vs_Forgiveness</link>
      <category>Publication</category>
      <guid>d9219b09-a069-4bb8-956c-4271b9428666</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>