<?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>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:17:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Vicarious and Contributory Copyright Infringement Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-for-vicarious-and-contributory-copyright-infringement-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-for-vicarious-and-contributory-copyright-infringement-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Luvdarts et al. v. AT&#38;T Mobility et. al. (9th Cir. March 25, 2013). Luvdarts, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s dismissal of its vicarious and contributory copyright infringement claims against certain wireless carriers [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-for-vicarious-and-contributory-copyright-infringement-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Applies Collateral Estoppel to Patent Claim Terms Not Previously Construed</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-applies-collateral-estoppel-to-patent-claim-terms-not-previously-construed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-applies-collateral-estoppel-to-patent-claim-terms-not-previously-construed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 10:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Aspex Eyewear &#38; Contour Optik Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2013). Aspex Eyewear, the plaintiff-appellent, appealed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that collateral estoppel precluded its patent infringement lawsuit against Zenni [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-applies-collateral-estoppel-to-patent-claim-terms-not-previously-construed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>2013 Offshore Technology Conference Sets Record Number of Attendees and Displays Impressive Innovation</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/2013-offshore-technology-conference-sees-record-number-of-attendees-and-impressive-innovation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/2013-offshore-technology-conference-sees-record-number-of-attendees-and-impressive-innovation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 13:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Pravel</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patentability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patentable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Offshore Technology Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oilfield Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 2013 Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, Texas drew the second-highest number of attendees in history.  According to the official records, 104,800 people attended the conference, which is 17% higher than last year.  For those of us who have seen the oil business in boom and bust cycles, the boom cycles are definitely more interesting! [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/2013-offshore-technology-conference-sees-record-number-of-attendees-and-impressive-innovation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.cam-tech.com/GorillaTorqueHDt%20FINAL.wmv" length="238021470" type="video/asf" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Decides That a Cross-Appeal is Required for District Court to Consider Patent Validity on Remand</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-decides-that-a-cross-appeal-is-required-for-district-court-to-consider-patent-validity-on-remand/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-decides-that-a-cross-appeal-is-required-for-district-court-to-consider-patent-validity-on-remand/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 22:52:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Validity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3281</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Lazare Kaplan Int’l Inc. v. Photoscribe Technologies Inc.. (Fed. Cir. 2013). In its opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s granting of relief under Rule 60 (b) and vacated its finding of patent invalidity because the prior judgment as to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-decides-that-a-cross-appeal-is-required-for-district-court-to-consider-patent-validity-on-remand/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Reaffirms That Form 18 is the Appropriate Standard in Evaluating a Complaint for Direct Patent Infringement</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-reaffirms-that-form-18-is-the-appropriate-standard-in-evaluating-a-complaint-for-direct-patent-infringement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-reaffirms-that-form-18-is-the-appropriate-standard-in-evaluating-a-complaint-for-direct-patent-infringement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 06:38:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 18, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in K-Tech Communications Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Inc. &#38; DirecTV (Fed Cir. 2013). K-Tech Communications, the plaintiff-appellant, appealed from the US District Court for the Central District of California’s dismissal of its patent infringement complaint for failure to state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/05/federal-circuit-reaffirms-that-form-18-is-the-appropriate-standard-in-evaluating-a-complaint-for-direct-patent-infringement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Virginia Appellate Court reverses Summary Judgment Against Google for Key Word Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/virginia-appellate-court_reverses-summary-judgment-against-google-for-key-word-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/virginia-appellate-court_reverses-summary-judgment-against-google-for-key-word-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 06:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Likelihood of Confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3234</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In April 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided the keyword advertising case Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc. 676 F.3d. 144 (4th Cir., April 9, 2012). The plaintiff-appellant, Rosetta Stone, appealed from a judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In its opinion, the Fourth [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/virginia-appellate-court_reverses-summary-judgment-against-google-for-key-word-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit Clarifies Requirements of DMCA Safe Harbor Provision in Veoh Networks Case</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-of-dmca-safe-harbor-provision-in-veoh-networks-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-of-dmca-safe-harbor-provision-in-veoh-networks-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:12:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyrights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In March, the Ninth Circuit issued a revised opinion in UMG Recordings Inc. v. Shelter Capital LLC and Veoh Networks Inc.  No. 09—55902 (9th Cir. 2013). In its opinion, the court upheld the district court’s granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because it was protected from a copyright infringement lawsuit by the safe harbor [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/ninth-circuit-clarifies-requirements-of-dmca-safe-harbor-provision-in-veoh-networks-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Limits Scope of Claims Based on the Specification and Prosecution History Estoppel</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-limits-scope-of-claims-based-on-the-specification-and-prosecution-history-estoppel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-limits-scope-of-claims-based-on-the-specification-and-prosecution-history-estoppel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 20:09:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 4, 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Bruce N. Saffran, M.D. v. Johnson &#38; Johnson and Cordis Corporation. No. 2012-1043 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In its opinion, written by Judge Lourie, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the US District for the Eastern District of Texas because the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-limits-scope-of-claims-based-on-the-specification-and-prosecution-history-estoppel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Clarifies the Description Requirements for a Patent Design Continuation Application</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-clarifies-the-description-requirements-for-a-patent-design-continuation-application/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-clarifies-the-description-requirements-for-a-patent-design-continuation-application/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 06:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Design Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3092</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 26, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided In re Owens et al No. 2012-1261 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In its opinion, written by Judge Prost, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of the appellant’s design patent continuation application because its claims were not supported by an adequate written description as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-clarifies-the-description-requirements-for-a-patent-design-continuation-application/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Will Review the De Novo Standard for Claim Construction</title>
		<link>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-will-review-the-de-novo-standard-for-claim-construction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-will-review-the-de-novo-standard-for-claim-construction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 06:19:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa M. Bieniek</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellalegal.com/?p=3069</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 15, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Lightning Ballast Control LLC v. Phillips Electronics North American Corp. Case No. 2012-1014, -1015. In granting the hearing, the Federal Circuit vacates its earlier January 2, 2013 opinion in the case. The appeal will primarily address the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.intellalegal.com/2013/04/federal-circuit-will-review-the-de-novo-standard-for-claim-construction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
