<?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/"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Expert Group (ipeg)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipeg.eu</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 15:23:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Anti Patent Rhetoric, does it help?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3698</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3698#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 15:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3698</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why are bright people uncharacteristically dense when it comes to understanding patents? Ignorance about a simultaneously technical, legal and commercial discipline is a factor, but there may be something else going on. The recent wave of assaults on patents and the patent system is difficult to ignore. Attributed to the innovation rights has been everything [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3698</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indonesia and IPR developments, a new dimension</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3682</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3682#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 May 2012 18:23:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developing Countries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indonesia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Following the conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement, much has been written on the potential costs and benefits of stronger Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) protection in terms of growth and technology transfer, particularly for developing countries. In a 2006 UNIDO[1] study, new evidence was provided linking protection of IPRs to economic growth, innovation and technology diffusion. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3682</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Die EU-Patentrechtsreform –  Zurück auf Los?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3670</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3670#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:24:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Das „Package“ der europäischen Patentgerichtsbarkeit besteht aus zwei Verordnungsentwürfen, der eine zur Sprachenfrage und der andere zum Einheitspatent („EU-Patent“), sowie dem Entwurf für ein Übereinkommen für ein einheitliches Patentgericht[1]. Nach erheblichem Widerstand aus Nutzerkreisen wegen zahlreicher Mängel von Abkommen und Patentverordnung und aufgrund fehlender Einigung über den Sitz des Gerichts wurde der von der polnischen [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3670</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FRANDly Licensing in Mobile Telecommunication</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3646</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3646#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:50:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FRAND]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After the EU Commission has opened a formal antitrust investigation against Samsung a few weeks ago the dispute between the biggest stakeholders in the Telecommunication equipment market recently takes a new turn. The EU Commission has opened two further formal antitrust investigations, this time against Motorola. These investigations are based on complaints filed by Apple [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3646</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Could AOL Patent Sale Have Netted More Than $1B?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3631</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3631#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AOL patent sale Starboard Value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3631</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It was widely reported yesterday that AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL) on Monday agreed to sell more than 800 patents and related products to Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT) for $1.056 billion. It was also written that the struggling online services provider was under pressure from activist investor Starboard Value, holder of 5.2% of AOL’s shares. AOL shares were up [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3631</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can you predict which patents are high risk?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3600</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3600#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:41:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colleen Chien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreward citations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigated patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[post-issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlitigated patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3600</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent risk managers would love to know which patents could eventually cause potential business disruption or could end up being licensed at high costs and which not. A number of prediction methods are currently used in patent risk management but none of them provide a high degree of certainty. Professor Colleen V. Chien of Santa [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3600</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<enclosure url="http://www.ipeg.eu/wp-content/uploads/Chiens-figure-2-150x150.png" length="13381" type="image/jpg" /><media:content url="http://www.ipeg.eu/wp-content/uploads/Chiens-figure-2-150x150.png" width="150" height="150" medium="image" type="image/png" />	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Malta, IPR tax planning opportunities</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3570</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3570#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:23:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tax & IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effective tax]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Malta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Research & Development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax planning]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3570</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From an IPR tax session held in London between Deloitte, Intertrust and IPEG Consultancy on 30 January 2012, it became clear that Malta may indeed be an excellent jurisdiction to locate intellectual property (IP) and to perform research and development activities (R&#38;D). The legal protection of IP and IP rights is ensured in Malta through [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3570</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Kodak hires investment, no IP Firm, to sell patents</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3555</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3555#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Management]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3555</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Facing big money problems, Eastman Kodak Co. in July 2011 hired a New York City investment bank to help it shop around a huge cache of digital imaging patents. Such a deal, potentially worth billions, did not come to pass in time to prevent Kodak from filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 19. But [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3555</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Owns LTE Patents?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3529</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3529#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:37:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LTE]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This year, LTE (Long Term Evolution) the 4th generation (4G) mobile network communication technology is rolled out in many countries worldwide. It looks like it will be an even greater success than the currently prevailing UMTS/GSM (3G/2G) technology. LTE will bring communication one more step closer to the vision of an ubiquitous network, connecting not [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3529</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Motion to German Parliament: No patentability for agricultural livestock and plants</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3514</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3514#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bardehle Pagenberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/?p=3514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 17 January 2012, the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis 90/die Grünen parliamentary parties submitted a joint motion to the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag). This provides for a prohibition on patents for conventionally bred agricultural livestock and plants. The significance of global green biotechnology cannot be easily overestimated. 140 million hectares are taken up by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3514</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

