<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Tech LawForum</title>
	<link>http://www.techlawforum.net</link>
	<description>Patent Reform and Internet Policy from Santa Clara University School of Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2008 07:12:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	
	<item>
		<title>DRM Not Dying, Just Resting</title>
		<description>

According to the Recording Industry Association of America's David Hughes, DRM (Digital Rights Management) is poised to make a comeback. Despite all evidence to the contrary, Hughes put together a list of "22 different ways to sell music" and figured "20 of them still require DRM."

Not to be outdone in ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/internet-policy/net-law/drm-not-dead-just-resting/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Applera Corp v. Illumina Inc Claim Construction</title>
		<description>Applera Corp.-Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina, Inc. (PDF)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16712
Decided Feb. 21, 2008
Judge Alsup

Judge Alsup construes six terms in this patent infringement lawsuit:

1) initializing oligonucleotide probe
2) ligating an extension oligonucleotide probe to said extendable probe terminus
3) extended oligonucleotide probe
4) identifying
5) just-ligated extension probe
6) repeating steps (b), (c) and ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/applera-illumina-claim-construction/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>March 27 - Record Companies Haul Out the Knives</title>
		<description>Atlantic Recording Corporation et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Claudia Wilken
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

BMG Music et al v. John Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March 27, 2008

Capitol Records, Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: March ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/march-27-record-companies-haul-out-knives/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>NBC Universal Cozies Up to YouTube Pirates</title>
		<description>

Danny Dover, posting at SEOmoz, relates an interesting story about his decision to post video of a Saturday Night Live skit to YouTube, and the resulting reaction from NBC Universal. The story doesn't unfold the way you might expect. 

NBC Universal was quick to react, sending Danny an email to ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/internet-policy/net-law/nbc-universal-you-tube-pirates/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Who is Suing Who &#8212; Late March IP Filings in ND Cal</title>
		<description>NexG Networks, Inc. v. NewPath Networks LLC
Assigned to: Hon. Vaughn R. Walker
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement
Filed: March 21, 2008

Rosequist v. Michael Taylor Designs, Inc.
Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
Filed: March 24, 2008

Gallup, Inc. v. Business Research Bureau et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte
Cause: 15:1114 ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/ip-filings-nd-cal-late-march/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Claim Construction in Exonhit Therapeutics v. Jivan Biologics</title>
		<description>Exonhit Therapeutics v. Jivan Biologics, Inc. (PDF)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24314
Decided March 7, 2008
Judge Alsup

Judge Alsup construed "region of variability" to mean "a segment of DNA within a gene or gene product that serves one role (exon, intron, exon-intron junction or exon-exon junction) with respect to one isoform of the ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/exonhit-jivan-claim-construction/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Judges in Conflict – Dismiss for No Rights in the Patent?</title>
		<description>Quantum Corp. v. Riverbed Tech. Inc. (PDF)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11348
Decided February 4, 2008
Judge Alsup

In this case Judge Alsup granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss whereas Judge Wilken denied a similar motion in a case with similar facts.  

Here, Plaintiff Quantum sued Defendant Riverbed for patent infringement. Riverbed contends ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/quantum-v-riverbed-motion-to-dismiss/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Fight for No. 2 Heats Up</title>
		<description>

At the end of last week, Microsoft gave Yahoo an ultimatum: Agree to a merger within three weeks, or it's hostile takeover time for you. Yahoo fired back over the weekend, saying Microsoft's $44.6B offer was still on the low side. While indicating it was still open to discussion, Yahoo ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/internet-policy/net-law/fight-for-second-to-google/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Who is Suing Who &#8212; New IP Filings in ND Cal</title>
		<description>Virgin Records America, Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Jeremy Fogel
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Patricia V. Trumbull
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: Feb. 28, 2008

Warner Bros. Records Inc. et al v. Doe
Assigned to: Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong
Cause: 17:501 Copyright Infringement
Filed: Feb. 28, 2008

KLA-Tencor Corporation v. Fujitsu Limited et al
Assigned to: Hon. ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/feb-march-2008-nd-cal/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Injunction Denied Because Defendants Won&#8217;t Infringe Anymore Anyway</title>
		<description>Nichia Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor, Ltd. (PDF)
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12183
Decided February 7, 2008
Judge Maxine M. Chesney

Plaintiff was denied a permanent injunction because it could not show it has suffered irreparable harm or that it will likely suffer irreparable harm. Defendant apparently only made one infringing sale in the US ...</description>
		<link>http://www.techlawforum.net/patent-reform/district-court/nichia-v-seoul-semiconductor-injunction-denied/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
