<?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; French Patent Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;cat=36" 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>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>Is France changing its position on EPLA?</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=118</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=118#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 05:31:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Patent Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/?p=118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The rumor goes that France is due to make a sea change shift towards supporting the EPLA, an initiative to harmonize the way patents are being litigated in Europe. The French Research Minister (heading the French Ministère de l&#8217;Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche”) Valérie Pecresse, has sent a letter (or is about to do [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=118</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>French Constitutional Council to Rule on London Agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=59</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=59#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Sep 2006 12:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ipeg</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[French Patent Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipeg.nl/?p=59</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[

France&#8217;s Constitutional Council is due to rule on the constitutionality of the London Agreement by the end of next week. Ratification by France is the chief remaining obstacle stopping the London Agreement coming into force. The &#8220;London Agreement&#8221; is about translations of patents in Europe and is drafted as a Protocol on the European Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?feed=rss2&amp;p=59</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
