<?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>Intellalegal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellalegal.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellalegal.com</link>
	<description>Patent Applications, Patent Searches, Trademark Applications, Copyright Applications, Patent Lawyers, Patent Attorneys, in Alexandria, Virginia, Houston, Texas and Austin, Texas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 19:02:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Impact of US Supreme Court&#8217;s Prometheus Patentable Subject Matter Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/impact-of-us-supreme-courts-prometheus-patentable-subject-matter-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/impact-of-us-supreme-courts-prometheus-patentable-subject-matter-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 19:02:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentable Subject Matter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its ruling in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit&#8217;s decision, stating that the diagnostic tests for determining the appropriate dosage of medication employed by Prometheus were not patentable because they &#8220;effectively claim the underlying laws of nature themselves.&#8221;  In issuing its ruling, The Supreme Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/impact-of-us-supreme-courts-prometheus-patentable-subject-matter-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amendments or Arguments after Final Rejection may be Accepted under new USPTO Pilot Program</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/amendments-or-arguments-after-final-rejection-may-be-accepted-under-new-uspto-pilot-program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/amendments-or-arguments-after-final-rejection-may-be-accepted-under-new-uspto-pilot-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 15:10:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jwpravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Examination Instructions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent and Trademark Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) is part of the USPTO’s on-going efforts towards compact prosecution and increased collaboration between examiners, inventors and the patent bar. Certain requirements must be met to qualify for the provisions of the AFCP.  For example: 1. The amendment places the application in condition for allowance by canceling claims or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/amendments-or-arguments-after-final-rejection-may-be-accepted-under-new-uspto-pilot-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Digitization of Copyright entries Nearly Complete at US Library of Congress</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/digitization-of-copyright-entries-nearly-complete-at-us-library-of-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/digitization-of-copyright-entries-nearly-complete-at-us-library-of-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 17:27:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jwpravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Copyright Office has announced that they are nearing the completion of the digitization of the Catalog of Copyright Entries with online availability through the Internet Archive.   645 CCE volumes are now available at http://www.archive.org/details/copyrightrecords/ ranging from the very first publication in 1891 up to and including 1978 and these cover all classes of works and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/05/digitization-of-copyright-entries-nearly-complete-at-us-library-of-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rosetta Stone v. Google Reversal &#8211; Dilution and Confusion of Trademarks by Google in Adwords</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/rosetta-stone-v-google-reversal-dilution-and-confusion-of-trademarks-by-google-in-adwords/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/rosetta-stone-v-google-reversal-dilution-and-confusion-of-trademarks-by-google-in-adwords/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disparagement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of Confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 9, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a large portion of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia&#8217;s ruling in Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc.  Rosetta Stone sued Google for trademark infringement of certain key phrases.  Google has an advertising program, AdWords, that allow third parties to buy certain [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/rosetta-stone-v-google-reversal-dilution-and-confusion-of-trademarks-by-google-in-adwords/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Suggests &#8220;Willful Blindness&#8221; May Trigger Liability under the DMCA</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/second-circuit-suggests-willful-blindness-may-trigger-liability-under-the-dmca/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/second-circuit-suggests-willful-blindness-may-trigger-liability-under-the-dmca/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a major player U.S. copyright law that has come to the forefront when, on appeal, the Second Circuit remanded the case Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., for further review of certain copyright issues.  One of the major aspect of the DMCA are the safe harbor provisions that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/second-circuit-suggests-willful-blindness-may-trigger-liability-under-the-dmca/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Contributes $5 Trillion, 50 Million Jobs to Economy</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/ip-contributes-5-trillion-50-million-jobs-to-economy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/ip-contributes-5-trillion-50-million-jobs-to-economy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 19:43:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jwpravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Office Hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PTO-Fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent and Trademark Office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Commerce Department released yesterday a comprehensive report, entitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus,” which finds that intellectual property (IP)-intensive industries support at least 40 million jobs and contribute more than $5 trillion dollars to, or 34.8 percent of, U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). “This first of its kind report [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/ip-contributes-5-trillion-50-million-jobs-to-economy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America Invents Act &#8211; Inventor&#8217;s Prior Use, Sale or Offer for Sale</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-inventors-prior-use-sale-or-offer-for-sale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-inventors-prior-use-sale-or-offer-for-sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:55:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act S. 23]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1660</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the last post, we discussed the possible impacts of the modification of the one year grace period, under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), under the new America Invents Act (AIA).  One potential issue is whether a public use or sale by the inventor less than one year before the filing of the application will fall under the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-inventors-prior-use-sale-or-offer-for-sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America Invents Act &#8211; Elimination of Twelve Month Grace Period</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-elimination-of-twelve-month-grace-period/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-elimination-of-twelve-month-grace-period/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Aryan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act S. 23]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the major changes to the patent system advanced by the America Invents Act (AIA) is that, starting March 16, 2013, the US will change from the previous first-to-invent system, to a first-to-file system.  Under the old system, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) stated that &#8220;a person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/america-invents-act-elimination-of-twelve-month-grace-period/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Patent and Trademark Office Expands Law School Pilot Program</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/us-patent-and-trademark-office-expands-law-school-pilot-program/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/us-patent-and-trademark-office-expands-law-school-pilot-program/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 14:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jwpravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Examiners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[US Patent and Trademark Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that it will open the current Patent Law School Clinic Certification Pilot Program to admit 10 additional schools for the upcoming fall 2012 academic year. This pilot program allows law students to practice patent law before the agency under the guidance of a law school faculty [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/04/us-patent-and-trademark-office-expands-law-school-pilot-program/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Crackberry Trademark Registrations Refused by Trademark Trial and Appeal Board &#8211; Parody not a Defense</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/03/crackberry-trademark-registrations-refused-by-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-parody-not-a-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/03/crackberry-trademark-registrations-refused-by-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-parody-not-a-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>jwpravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Famous Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of Confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opposition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademark Trial and Appeal Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=1621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a precedential opinion, on February 27, 2012 the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained four oppositions filed by Research in Motion (RIM) against Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. (DPMG). Link to Case here. DPMG had filed four trademark applications, each for the mark CRACKBERRY.   Three of the CRACKBERRY applications were filed in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2012/03/crackberry-trademark-registrations-refused-by-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-parody-not-a-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

