<?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>Elman Technology Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://elman.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://elman.com</link>
	<description>STRATEGIC LAWYERING. CULTIVATING INNOVATION.©</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:17:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>

   <!-- Gravatar Favicon by Patrick http://patrick.bloggles.info/ -->
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court, snowed by ACLU smear campaign, resurrects archaic requirement of &#8220;invention&#8221; as a test of patent eligibility.</title>
		<link>http://elman.com/2013/06/supreme-court-snowed-by-smear-campaign-resurrects-archaic-requirement-of-invention-as-a-test-of-patent-eligibility/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-snowed-by-smear-campaign-resurrects-archaic-requirement-of-invention-as-a-test-of-patent-eligibility</link>
		<comments>http://elman.com/2013/06/supreme-court-snowed-by-smear-campaign-resurrects-archaic-requirement-of-invention-as-a-test-of-patent-eligibility/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:57:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Elman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Biotechnology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elman.com/?p=1543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In their decision June 13, 2013, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, the Supreme Court seems to have been snowed by an anti-patent publicity campaign engineered by a brilliant but diabolical law professor and gullible lawyers at the venerable ACLU. The opinion of the Court resurrects an archaic requirement of &#8220;invention&#8221; that was [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://elman.com/2013/06/supreme-court-snowed-by-smear-campaign-resurrects-archaic-requirement-of-invention-as-a-test-of-patent-eligibility/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State of Vermont Declares War on &#8220;Patent Trolls&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://elman.com/2013/05/vermont-declares-war-on-patent-trolls/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=vermont-declares-war-on-patent-trolls</link>
		<comments>http://elman.com/2013/05/vermont-declares-war-on-patent-trolls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 20:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Elman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elman.com/?p=1506</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) spearheaded the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, and took effect in stages culminating March 16, 2013.  During the pendency of the legislation, Sen. Leahy pointed out the long history of innovation by Vermonters, observing that Vermont receives more patents per capita than any [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://elman.com/2013/05/vermont-declares-war-on-patent-trolls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Human Genes Patentable?—The Experts Weigh In</title>
		<link>http://elman.com/2013/05/are-human-genes-patentable%e2%80%94the-experts-weigh-in/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=are-human-genes-patentable%25e2%2580%2594the-experts-weigh-in</link>
		<comments>http://elman.com/2013/05/are-human-genes-patentable%e2%80%94the-experts-weigh-in/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 19:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Elman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elman.com/?p=1524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pending Supreme Court Case Against Myriad Genetics Is Analyzed in Biotechnology Law Report New Rochelle, NY, May 22, 2013—A landmark case for the biotechnology industry awaits a Supreme Court ruling, expected in June, on whether polynucleotides isolated from human genes should continue to be subject to patent protection. On April 15, each side in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://elman.com/2013/05/are-human-genes-patentable%e2%80%94the-experts-weigh-in/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spark Your Creativity: participate online in Tina Seelig&#8217;s MOOC via Stanford&#8217;s Venture Lab</title>
		<link>http://elman.com/2013/04/stanford-course-on-creativity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=stanford-course-on-creativity</link>
		<comments>http://elman.com/2013/04/stanford-course-on-creativity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Elman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Events]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elman.com/?p=1494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delivered via Stanford's platform <a href="https://venture-lab.org/">Venture-Lab</a>, this free MOOC will springboard from her book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/inGenius-Course-Creativity-Tina-Seelig/dp/0062020706">inGenius</a>.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://elman.com/2013/04/stanford-course-on-creativity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patentability: &#8220;non-obviousness&#8221; and &#8220;common sense&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://elman.com/2012/06/patentability-non-obviousness-and-common-sense/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=patentability-non-obviousness-and-common-sense</link>
		<comments>http://elman.com/2012/06/patentability-non-obviousness-and-common-sense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gerry Elman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elman.com/?p=1403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&#8220;CAFC&#8221;) put further gloss on the term &#8220;common sense&#8221; as used by the Supreme Court in the 2007 case of KSR v. Teleflex. This new case (Mintz v. Dietz &#038; Watson) involved a patent on casings for hot dogs with a woven mesh [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://elman.com/2012/06/patentability-non-obviousness-and-common-sense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
