<?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) &#187; European Patent Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=27" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 07:28:44 +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>Texas Forum Shopping &#8211; Europe has its share as well</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1011</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1011#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 11:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK patent litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brussels I-Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum shopping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gasser v. Missad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Owusu vs. Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rocket docket]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Turner vs. Grovit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Part of any smart patent litigation strategy is to seek the right venue. This is true for Europe as well as for the US. Among practitioners it is known that Texas is a preferred venue for patent litigation in the US, as the judges are assumed to be patentee friendly and, important, not inclined to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=1011</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Holding up products at EU borders using patents</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=959</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=959#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EU border detention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manufacturing fiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montex vs. Diesel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nokia vs. UK customs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philips vs. Princo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=959</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For several years now, patent holders and trademark owners have successfully been using European Regulation 1383/2003 to ensure that customs authorities in the EU detain or suspend the release of goods suspected of infringing their IP rights. These IP right owners take the view that goods in transit must be considered infringing goods under Regulation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=959</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Independent Invention</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:48:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Trolls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK patent litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent invention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=921</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is “independent invention” a cure against trolls in that it can be argued that infringement cannot be established in case of an “independent invention”? No it is not. A  lot of confusion, misunderstandings, half-truths, nonsensical quasi-lawerly talk exists around the term &#8220;independent invention&#8220;. The term is often &#8220;spittered&#8221; about as means against patent infringement actions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=921</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Lull</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=890</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=890#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:41:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cross Border Injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sisvel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[MAybe it is time for some intellectual reflection on the current stage of patent litigation in Europe. Those reflections come from a idiot savant, as we are out of patent litigation in Europe for some time now and much what is being brought up may also have to do with being out of the litigation [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=890</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EPLA &#8217;s successor UPLS, what&#8217;s in a name?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=590</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=590#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 16:03:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UPLS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Commision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unified Patent Litigation System]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently the European Commission requested the Council to authorize the start of negotiations for the conclusion of an Agreement Creating a Unified Patent Litigation System. Old wine in a new bottle? EPLA (European Patent Law Agreement) intended to address the shortcomings of the present system, where a patent infringement and invalidity claim must be filed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=590</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is there an After-Life for Pan European Injunctions?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=153</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=153#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Severin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cross Border Injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pan-European Injunction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/blog/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am sure you remember the good old days when Dutch patent practitioners introduced the “pan European injunctions”. Based on the idea that a European patent granted in Munich according to uniform (and unified) principles of patentability should enjoy pan-European protection by a single strike. The Dutch, not known for their shyness when it comes [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=153</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Europe’s Patent Demise</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=148</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=148#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Severin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/blog/?p=148</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You are a European institution, the European Central Bank, and you seek the invalidation of what has been granted as a valid right by another European institution, the European Patent Office (EPO). The last weeks we got a taste of how The Great Patent Divide, the most un-European experience in patent law, has turned into [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=148</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A great patent judge passes away</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=129</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=129#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 10:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK patent litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/?p=129</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As blogger just learned, on Christmas Eve, one of Europe&#8217;s great patent judges, Lord Justice Pumfrey, passed away quite unexpectedly at the much too young an age of 56. He was the author of many judgements that changed the patent landscape in the last years, not just for the UK but for many European patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=129</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Patent Exhaustion the Big New Thing?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=116</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=116#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Strategy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/?p=116</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It can be no coincidence that both in the US as well as in Europe “patent exhaustion” has been brought in the legal limelight. Last week in the US the US Supreme Court allowed certiorari in a case Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 06-937.At the same time in Europe Nokia alleges in German [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=116</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>EU access to the Hague system on international designs</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=115</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=115#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[European Patent Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On 24th September, the European Union submitted its instrument of accession to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement to the World Intellectual Property Organization. The Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement establishes a system for the international registration of industrial designs. After joining it, economic actors will have the possibility to use a single [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=115</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
