<?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>Chisum.com &#187; Articles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chisum.com/category/speeches-writings/comments-notes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chisum.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:13:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Review of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Cases in 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/review-of-supreme-court-and-federal-circuit-cases-in-2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/review-of-supreme-court-and-federal-circuit-cases-in-2010#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donald S. Chisum</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chisum.com/?p=875</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Outline reviews selected important decisions in 2010 by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit on patent law.    Patent Law Cases in 2010
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This Outline reviews selected important decisions in 2010 by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit on patent law.    <a href="http://www.chisum.com/wp-content/uploads/Patent-Law-Cases-in-2010.pdf">Patent Law Cases in 2010</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/review-of-supreme-court-and-federal-circuit-cases-in-2010/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Essay on Bilski: Patent Claim Scope</title>
		<link>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/essay-on-bilski-patent-claim-scope</link>
		<comments>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/essay-on-bilski-patent-claim-scope#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:11:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donald S. Chisum</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski Watch]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chisum.com/?p=312</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What does Bilski portend for the future of patent law?  What was the real concern of the Justices in Bilski?  Was it with the undue breadth of the claims in question, claims that the Justices intuitively felt went beyond a &#8220;new and useful&#8221; contribution?   Does the majority holding Bilski suggest a shift away from the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does <em>Bilski </em>portend for the future of patent law?  What was the real concern of the Justices in <em>Bilski</em>?  Was it with the undue breadth of the claims in question, claims that the Justices intuitively felt went beyond a &#8220;new and useful&#8221; contribution?   Does the majority holding <em>Bilski</em> suggest a shift away from the formalistic Section 101 categories of patent eligible subject matter, such as the definition of &#8220;process&#8221; and the judicial exceptions for &#8220;abstract ideas,&#8221; and toward the traditional fact-based regulators of patent claim scope, such as enablement, novelty and unobviousness?</p>
<p>Chisum explores these questions in a work in progress: &#8220;Weeds and Seeds in the Supreme Court&#8217;s Business Method Patents Decision: New Directions for Regulating Patent Scope.&#8221;  <a href="http://www.chisum.com/wp-content/uploads/Essay-on-Bilski1.pdf">Essay on Bilski</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/essay-on-bilski-patent-claim-scope/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Top Ten Intellectual Property Cases of the Federal Circuit 1982-2002</title>
		<link>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/2002-top-ten-intellectual-property-cases-of-the-federal-circuit-1982-2002</link>
		<comments>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/2002-top-ten-intellectual-property-cases-of-the-federal-circuit-1982-2002#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chisum.com/new/?p=79</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Twentieth Anniversary Judicial Conference of the Court of Appeals for  the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C., April 8, 2002.  217 F.R.D. 548
2002 Speech Text
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Twentieth Anniversary Judicial Conference of the Court of Appeals for  the Federal Circuit, Washington, D.C., April 8, 2002.  217 F.R.D. 548</p>
<p><a href="http://www.chisum.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2002-speech-text.pdf">2002 Speech Text</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.chisum.com/speeches-writings/comments-notes/2002-top-ten-intellectual-property-cases-of-the-federal-circuit-1982-2002/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

