<?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>Intellectual Property Expert Group (ipeg)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:14:55 +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>MSD leaves Netherlands R&amp;D Facility, Compulsory License an Option?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1550</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1550#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:15:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compulsory license]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dwanglicentie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1550</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[MSD recently announced it will close down the Organon research &#38; development facilities in Oss, near the Netherlands university of Nijmegen. This came as a shock to many in the Netherlands. The departure of Organon is &#8216;a totally missed chance,&#8217; said Michel  Dutrée, head of the Dutch pharmaceutical organization Nefarma. &#8216;Now you  see [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1550</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patenting Tomatoes and Broccoli</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1532</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1532#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:51:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biological process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patenting life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Siemens application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tomato patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today the European Patent Office&#8217;s Large Board of Appeal will hear a highly contested and much anticipated case on on the patentability of biotechnological enhanced breeding methods (in this case for broccoli and tomatoes). The patentability of biotechnological inventions is equally controversial as whether software patents are eligible for patent protection. Critics argue that patenting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1532</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reputation and Intellectual Property</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1516</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1516#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 20:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glynn Lunney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greenspan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harvard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reputation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In 1999 Alan Greenspan, the former head of the US Federal Reserve, delivered a speech at Harvard University entitled “Transcending all else is being principled”. In it he said of reputation “In today&#8217;s world, where ideas are increasingly displacing the physical in the production of economic value, competition for reputation becomes a significant driving force, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1516</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Media Industry’s Push against Network Service Providers</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[A&M v. Napster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jonathan Zittrain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MGM v. Grokster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York Times v. Tasini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sony v. Universal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Universal v. Reimerdes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viacom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouTube]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of the largest and most closely-watched intellectual property disputes in the United States right now is the lawsuit that Viacom, a major media company, filed in 2007 against Google. This is a copyright case, not a patent case, but it has major implications for the types of technologies that will be valuable in curbing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1502</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IPEG blog&#8217;s 5th anniversary, over 39,000 visitors a month</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1494</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1494#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:37:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[featured articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[the IPEG blog started in 2005 as a hobby project, as part of a consultancy of 19 intellectual property subject matter experts. IPEG now reaches over 39,000 unique visitors a month, all intellectual property professionals and those interested in IP. Below is an infographic showing where the IPEG readers orginate from. we thank all of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1494</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court Reaffirms Patentability Of Business Methods</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1474</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1474#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:13:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[US Patent Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bilski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business method]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Irell Manella]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1474</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When Bernard Bilski sought to patent a method for hedging against weather-driven changes in energy prices, he undoubtedly never anticipated the storm of legal controversy that would ensue.  Bilski’s 1997 patent application took center stage in a struggle to establish guidelines for assessing whether certain types of subject matter—and in particular, so-called “business methods”—no matter [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1474</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Impetus on EU Patent, Unified EU Patent Court and UPLS</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1447</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1447#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UPLS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unified Patent Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During the Intellectual Property Business Congress (IPBC) in Munich one of the more interesting presentations was from Margot Fröhlinger, Director knowledge based economy of the EU Commission (DG Internal Market and Services) who handles the unpopular file on the creation of the EU patent and the creation of  a unified patent litigation system in Europe. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1447</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Assessing the Probabilities of Obtaining a License</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1414</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1414#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Licensing Probability Model]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I never met an inventor who didn’t want to know the value of his inventions. Accounting rules allow intangible assets to be recorded on balance sheets at their ‘highest and best uses’. The highest and best use of inventions is typically to license the invention to a company capable of delivering products that incorporate the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1414</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Valuation of Intellectual Property: Moving Beyond the Paradox</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1401</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1401#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:08:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in kind contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intangibles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spin off]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Intellectual Property (IP) valuation is easily one of the most misunderstood topics surrounding the management of intangible assets. Over the last 20 years we have seen the migration of IP valuation from being a tool for estimating IP damages into more “main stream” applications, and with the explosive growth in IP transactions, the need for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1401</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Innovations are Key in Economic Downturn</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1388</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1388#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:00:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R&D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General Electric]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nokia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1388</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas L. Friedman reminded us that “Invent, Invent, Invent” is the mantra to get us out of economic downturn. A surprising number of great companies, like General Electric, IBM, Kraft, McDonald&#8217;s, Walt Disney and Electronic Arts were formed in years that featured a recession, as did Motorola, HP,  Xerox, Unisys, Texas Instruments and Revlon.  The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1388</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
