<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Georgia</title>
	<link>http://www.georgiaip.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:45:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress" -->

	<item>
		<title>Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) Signed by President Obama</title>
		<description><![CDATA[ On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA) in to law. The major thrust behind the Act was to harmonize U.S. patent law with that of other countries, such as Japan and those in the European Union.  Prior to the AIA, the last major overall to the patent system occurred in [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.georgiaip.org/2011/10/leahy-smith-america-invents-act-aia-signed-by-president-obama/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Privacash v. Amercian Express (Fed. Cir 2011)</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Decided August 11, 2011  In this holding Privacash, Inc., appealed the decision from the Western District of Wisconsin.  The district court entered a summary judgment stating cards sold by the American Express Company and its affiliates did not infringe the patent held by Privacash.  The prior court’s holding was based on the rationale that the [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.georgiaip.org/2011/08/privacash-v-amercian-express-fed-cir-2011/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Global Tech, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (Supreme Court 2011)</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Decided May 31, 2011 In this holding the Supreme Court established the level of requisite knowledge needed to substantiate induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  The Court’s holding made three major points. First, induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.  Second, deliberate indifference [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.georgiaip.org/2011/06/global-tech-inc-v-seb-s-a-supreme-court-2011/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Gary Odom v.  Microsoft Corporation, (Fed. Cir. 2011)</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Decided May 4, 2011 In the prior district court case, Gary Odom asserted that his patent was infringed by Microsoft software.  Odom owned a U.S. patent, involving a method for manipulating groups of “tools” in “toolbars” found in computer software applications.   In its holding, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.georgiaip.org/2011/05/gary-odom-v-microsoft-corporation-fed-cir-2011/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>

