<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: False Marking Case Update</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inventivestep.net/2010/06/11/false-marking-case-update/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inventivestep.net/2010/06/11/false-marking-case-update/</link>
	<description>A blog dedicated to a discussion of patent law issues and strategies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 15:12:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Another Argument That the False Marking Statute is Unconstitutional &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2010/06/11/false-marking-case-update/#comment-6667</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Another Argument That the False Marking Statute is Unconstitutional &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=1646#comment-6667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] By Matt Osenga  While patent owners wait for Congress to amend the false marking statute, plaintiffs continue to file cases seeking damages for falsely marked products, such as with patent numbers that do not cover the [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] By Matt Osenga  While patent owners wait for Congress to amend the false marking statute, plaintiffs continue to file cases seeking damages for falsely marked products, such as with patent numbers that do not cover the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Pending, Marking &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2010/06/11/false-marking-case-update/#comment-6571</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patent Pending, Marking &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Jan 2011 14:46:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=1646#comment-6571</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] recent years, there have been a number of cases involving allegations of false marking.  Under current law, anyone may bring a lawsuit that [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] recent years, there have been a number of cases involving allegations of false marking.  Under current law, anyone may bring a lawsuit that [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Reform in the Lame Duck Congress? &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2010/06/11/false-marking-case-update/#comment-5275</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patent Reform in the Lame Duck Congress? &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 16:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=1646#comment-5275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Similarly in 2010, Congress could not pass a budget prior to adjourning for the mid-term elections at the end of September.  A continuing resolution was passed to keep the government running until December 3.  Now, the lame duck Congress must pass a new budget.  Will it include Patent Reform?  Should it include Patent Reform without proper debate?  There seems to at least be sufficient support to put a stop to the false marking cases. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Similarly in 2010, Congress could not pass a budget prior to adjourning for the mid-term elections at the end of September.  A continuing resolution was passed to keep the government running until December 3.  Now, the lame duck Congress must pass a new budget.  Will it include Patent Reform?  Should it include Patent Reform without proper debate?  There seems to at least be sufficient support to put a stop to the false marking cases. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

