<?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>Biotechnology Patent Law Blog &#124; Patents4Life by Warren Woessner &#187; Post-Grant Issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patents4life.com/category/post-grant-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patents4life.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:44:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4</generator>
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.patents4life.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Clarifies Prosecution Laches</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/11/federal-circuit-clarifies-prosecution-laches/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/11/federal-circuit-clarifies-prosecution-laches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:56:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biotechnology news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cancer research tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP law tools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[temodar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The facts of Cancer Research Tech. v. Barr Labs., Inc., App. No. 2010-1204 (Fed. Cir. November 9, 2010) (PDF at end of post) are almost more interesting than the holding, which is : “We…now hold that to establish [the prejudice necessary for a finding of prosecution laches] an accused infringer must show evidence of intervening [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/11/federal-circuit-clarifies-prosecution-laches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do You Have Anything To Prove? Frye Fries A Half-Baked Standard</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/do-you-have-anything-to-prove-frye-fries-a-half-baked-standard/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/do-you-have-anything-to-prove-frye-fries-a-half-baked-standard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:51:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intellectual property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/?p=217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The recent precedential decision, Ex parte Frye, Appeal No. 2009-006013 (Bd. App. 2010) reversed the Examiner’s rejection of a claim to a shoe. More importantly, the Board emphasized that the Board on appeal “reviews the particular finding(s) contested by an appellant anew in light of all the evidence and argument on that issue.” This seems self-evident, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/03/do-you-have-anything-to-prove-frye-fries-a-half-baked-standard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Privilege Primer</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/01/privilege-primer/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/01/privilege-primer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Keffe v. Bernard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Robins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronal Schutz]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2010/01/privilege-primer/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Guest Posting from Ron Shutz Case: Keefe v. Bernard, 2009 W.L. 346738 (Oct. 30, 2009). Topic: Corporate Attorney/Client &#38; Work Product Privilege Facts The attorney representing both the doctor and his corporate employer in a medical malpractice action interviewed an orthopedic surgeon also employed by the corporation. The plaintiff sought discovery of a report the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2010/01/privilege-primer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JUDGE RADER DEFENDS THE FUTURE OF IP</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/judge-rader-defends-the-future-of-ip/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/judge-rader-defends-the-future-of-ip/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Rader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/judge-rader-defends-the-future-of-ip/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit was the luncheon speaker at the AIPLA Annual Meeting Friday in DC and, as usual, he spoke well. So many of his fellow- (and one female) judges where there that he quipped: &#8220;Now that we&#8217;re here and we have a quorum, shall we vote on inequitable conduct?&#8221; (Nervous [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/judge-rader-defends-the-future-of-ip/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hal Wegner Wakes Up ACI Biotech Patents Forum in Boston</title>
		<link>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/hal-wegner-wakes-up-aci-biotech-patents-forum-in-boston/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/hal-wegner-wakes-up-aci-biotech-patents-forum-in-boston/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:26:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Warren Woessner</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ACI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harold Wegner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[KSR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warren Woessner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/hal-wegner-wakes-up-aci-biotech-patents-forum-in-boston/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On Sept. 30th, Harold C. (Hal) Wegner gave a talk on current developments that emphasized the importance of inter partes reexamination, particularly as a weapon of patent destruction. His opinion, summarized by me, is that KSR is increasingly being applied to biotech claims by Examiners. Applicants then are forced to put in declarations arguing secondary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patents4life.com/2009/10/hal-wegner-wakes-up-aci-biotech-patents-forum-in-boston/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

