<?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>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Intellectual Property</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/intellectual-property/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Still No Injunction in ‘JoeyBra’ Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/still-no-injunction-in-joeybra-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/still-no-injunction-in-joeybra-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Norman K. Moon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74524</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Charlottesville U.S. District Court declines to reconsider its denial of a preliminary injunction in this patent infringement lawsuit involving designs for pocketed bras. Plaintiff filed this patent infringement case in May 2012, which stems from a design patent, the ‘541 patent, that plaintiff received in 2001 for a bra design with pockets. Plaintiff became [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/23/still-no-injunction-in-joeybra-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Venue Transfer Ordered in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/venue-transfer-ordered-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/venue-transfer-ordered-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:57:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court grants defendants’ motions to transfer venue of these four patent infringement actions to a California federal court. All four of these cases are patent infringement actions brought by the same plaintiff regarding the same technology. This particular matter is before the court on defendants LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/venue-transfer-ordered-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contest Ends Over Telecom Software Patents&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to defendant, an Irish company with U.S. headquarters in Reston, on all patent infringement claims asserted by plaintiff, an Israeli company that sells software portfolios to telecommunications companies,  and summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaims for inequitable conduct. Although there remain disputed issues of material fact [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pretrial Injunction Ordered in Trade Secret Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 15:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mosby G. Perrow III]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lynchburg Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74347</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Lynchburg Circuit Court grants a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant’s use or disclosure of trade secrets or confidential and/or proprietary information defendant may have obtained from his prior employment with plaintiff, before he went to work for a competitor. Under Virginia law, in order to establish misappropriation of trade secrets under Va. Code § [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/14/pretrial-injunction-ordered-in-trade-secret-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rejects Claim for Pipe Patent&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Liam O'Grady]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74138</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alexandria U.S. District Court upholds the USPTO’s rejection of plaintiff’s claims seeking to patent the a spirally formed pipe. On May 17, 1999, plaintiff filed a ‘922 application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Examiner rejected claims 1-9 of plaintiff’s application, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reversed the Examiner’s rejections. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/03/court-rejects-claim-for-pipe-patent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Trims Costs for Winning Party&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court takes a close look at plaintiff’s request for $132,137.90 and awards $89,207.90 by deducting claimed expenses such as videography fees for depositions, computer animations and “metadata extraction.” On Sept. 27, 2012, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant Openet Telecom Inc. and summary judgment of no inequitable conduct [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Association Said Logo Used in Ad Sales&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/association-said-logo-used-in-ad-sales/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/association-said-logo-used-in-ad-sales/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Gerald Bruce Lee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this case involving trademark infringement claims by a trade association against an individual due to the individual’s advertisements soliciting trade association members for listing in a directory, the Alexandria U.S. District Court adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation as to plaintiff association’s trademark infringement claim because defendant’s ads contained marks that were distinguishable from plaintiff’s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/association-said-logo-used-in-ad-sales/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patent Licensee Must Join Owners as Plaintiffs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 17:33:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Henry E. Hudson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73512</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff technology company does not have the necessary substantive right to the patents at issue to confer constitutional or statutory standing to prosecute this suit alleging infringement of two U.S. patents relating to computer-assisted mapping technologies licensed to plaintiffs, and the Richmond U.S. District Court says the case will be dismissed unless the patent owners [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/01/patent-licensee-must-join-owners-as-plaintiffs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pretrial Rulings Issued in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/pretrial-rulings-issued-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/pretrial-rulings-issued-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 14:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73478</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this patent infringement suit, an Abingdon U.S. District Court rules on the parties’ motions in limine, including denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude defendants from offering evidence construing claim terms not already construed by the court. Plaintiff specifically asks the court to prevent defendant from arguing any particular construction of the phrase “controlling [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/29/pretrial-rulings-issued-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Venue Change in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mark Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Norfolk U.S. District Court denies a transfer of venue to a New Jersey federal court and venue-related discovery in this patent infringement suit; the patented technologies at issue here were all researched and developed primarily in this district. Plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences Inc. (VIS) is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/no-venue-change-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
