// API callback
jQuery111306593226878903806_1446510736661({"version":"1.0","encoding":"UTF-8","feed":{"xmlns":"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom","xmlns$openSearch":"http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/","xmlns$blogger":"http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008","xmlns$georss":"http://www.georss.org/georss","xmlns$gd":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005","xmlns$thr":"http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0","id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-11-02T22:49:59.456+11:00"},"category":[{"term":"Australia"},{"term":"News"},{"term":"Patentable subject matter"},{"term":"Law reform"},{"term":"Patent Office"},{"term":"US"},{"term":"Patent law"},{"term":"Computer programs"},{"term":"Apple-v-Samsung"},{"term":"Genetic technology"},{"term":"Smartphone wars"},{"term":"Pharmaceuticals"},{"term":"Appeal"},{"term":"Infringement"},{"term":"Innovation policy"},{"term":"New Zealand"},{"term":"Raising the Bar"},{"term":"Business processes"},{"term":"Interlocutory injunction"},{"term":"Obviousness"},{"term":"Politics"},{"term":"Public policy"},{"term":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"term":"Innovation patent"},{"term":"Europe"},{"term":"Examination"},{"term":"Patent attorney profession"},{"term":"Patent litigation"},{"term":"Patents and society"},{"term":"Litigation"},{"term":"Trolls"},{"term":"Licensing"},{"term":"Patentology admin"},{"term":"Claim construction"},{"term":"Legislation"},{"term":"Novelty"},{"term":"Validity"},{"term":"Amendments"},{"term":"Economics"},{"term":"Extensions of time"},{"term":"Extension of patent term"},{"term":"Opposition"},{"term":"FRAND"},{"term":"Strategy"},{"term":"Evidence"},{"term":"Personal"},{"term":"Entitlement"},{"term":"International treaties"},{"term":"Regulations"},{"term":"Compulsory license"},{"term":"Innovation"},{"term":"Public research"},{"term":"UK"},{"term":"Government programs"},{"term":"Inventorship"},{"term":"Competition law"},{"term":"Designs"},{"term":"Federal Court practice"},{"term":"Google"},{"term":"Inventions"},{"term":"Official fees"},{"term":"Canada"},{"term":"Damages"},{"term":"History"},{"term":"Injunctions"},{"term":"PCT"},{"term":"Priority claim"},{"term":"Professional conduct"},{"term":"Accelerated examination"},{"term":"Amazon 1-click"},{"term":"Android"},{"term":"Divisional applications"},{"term":"Prior art"},{"term":"Statistics"},{"term":"WIPO"},{"term":"Biotechnology"},{"term":"Copyright"},{"term":"Indirect infringement"},{"term":"Oracle v Google"},{"term":"Patent filing"},{"term":"Patent pools"},{"term":"Reviews"},{"term":"Scams"},{"term":"Utility\/usefulness"},{"term":"Backlog"},{"term":"Best method\/mode"},{"term":"Funding"},{"term":"High Court"},{"term":"Humour"},{"term":"Microsoft"},{"term":"Ownership"},{"term":"Provisional applications"},{"term":"Reexamination"},{"term":"Revocation"},{"term":"Book review"},{"term":"CCH"},{"term":"China"},{"term":"Confidential information"},{"term":"Crown use"},{"term":"Events"},{"term":"Fair Basis"},{"term":"Fatima Beattie"},{"term":"Fraud"},{"term":"Grace period"},{"term":"Intervening rights"},{"term":"Interview"},{"term":"Japan"},{"term":"Korea"},{"term":"Motorola"},{"term":"Open source"},{"term":"Penalties for Infringement"},{"term":"Plant Breeder's Rights"},{"term":"Privileged communications"},{"term":"Register of Patents"},{"term":"Technology standards"},{"term":"Account of profits"},{"term":"Acquisitions"},{"term":"Apple"},{"term":"Broadband"},{"term":"Cloning"},{"term":"Constitution"},{"term":"Developing world"},{"term":"Double patenting"},{"term":"Electronic communications"},{"term":"Employee inventions"},{"term":"Enablement"},{"term":"Experimental use defence"},{"term":"Extradition"},{"term":"False suggestion"},{"term":"Harmonisation"},{"term":"Inherency"},{"term":"Jurisdiction"},{"term":"Medical research"},{"term":"Patent analytics"},{"term":"Publication"},{"term":"Samsung"},{"term":"Stay of proceedings"},{"term":"Support"},{"term":"Tax incentives"},{"term":"Trademarks"},{"term":"Unity"},{"term":"Unjustified threats"},{"term":"Valuation"},{"term":"Venice"},{"term":"AAT practice"},{"term":"ADR"},{"term":"Amicus curiae"},{"term":"Andrew Christie"},{"term":"Attorney fees"},{"term":"BSKB"},{"term":"Conventions"},{"term":"Costs"},{"term":"Deadlines"},{"term":"Discovery"},{"term":"EU patent"},{"term":"Electronic Transactions Act 1999"},{"term":"Error correction"},{"term":"Estoppel"},{"term":"Evergreening"},{"term":"FOXTEL v TiVo"},{"term":"False marking"},{"term":"IPTA"},{"term":"In-house counsel"},{"term":"Indonesia"},{"term":"Interference"},{"term":"Inventors"},{"term":"Joint infringement"},{"term":"Judicial review"},{"term":"Latin America"},{"term":"Maintenance fees"},{"term":"Marking"},{"term":"Media"},{"term":"Michael Cammarata"},{"term":"Newsbytes"},{"term":"Non-disclosure agreements"},{"term":"Notice to Produce"},{"term":"Nullification of acceptance"},{"term":"Omnibus claims"},{"term":"PPH"},{"term":"Paris Convention"},{"term":"Patent Cooperation Treaty"},{"term":"Patent of addition"},{"term":"Patent specifications"},{"term":"Peer-to-Patent"},{"term":"Philanthropy"},{"term":"Piracy"},{"term":"Prior use defence"},{"term":"Recipes"},{"term":"Regulatory use defence"},{"term":"Remedies"},{"term":"Science"},{"term":"Secret use"},{"term":"Security interests"},{"term":"Shark Tank"},{"term":"Soundbytes"},{"term":"Standard of proof"},{"term":"Stem Cells"},{"term":"Summary judgment"},{"term":"Surrender of patent"},{"term":"Survey"},{"term":"TRIPS"},{"term":"The Asian Century"},{"term":"Trans-Pacific Partnership"},{"term":"Treaties"},{"term":"USITC"},{"term":"Victoria"},{"term":"Vringo"},{"term":"Whole of contents"},{"term":"Yacht racing"},{"term":"ZTE"},{"term":"iOS"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"patentology"},"subtitle":{"type":"html","$t":""},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/feeds\/posts\/summary"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Licensing,Licensing"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/search\/label\/Licensing"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=6\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Licensing,Licensing"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"generator":{"version":"7.00","uri":"http://www.blogger.com","$t":"Blogger"},"openSearch$totalResults":{"$t":"20"},"openSearch$startIndex":{"$t":"1"},"openSearch$itemsPerPage":{"$t":"5"},"entry":[{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-7205447860186789800"},"published":{"$t":"2015-03-15T17:26:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-03-15T17:26:53.429+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Licensing"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent pools"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Trolls"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Vringo"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"ZTE"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Compliance with 3G Standards ‘Prima Facie’ Evidence of Infringement"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"A recent procedural decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Vringo Infrastructure Inc v ZTE (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2015] FCA 177) has revealed new details of the case against Chinese telecoms equipment manufacturer ZTE by Vringo Infrastructure, Inc.\n\nVringo is a US-based non-practising entity (NPE) which commenced patent infringement proceedings against the Australian subsidiary of the "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/03\/compliance-with-3g-standards-prima.html#comment-form","title":"3 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/7205447860186789800"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/7205447860186789800"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/03\/compliance-with-3g-standards-prima.html","title":"Compliance with 3G Standards ‘Prima Facie’ Evidence of Infringement"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh5.ggpht.com\/-B1v4OOiUNvY\/VQUle-xc6WI\/AAAAAAAADZg\/-Tc52LoqzAA\/s72-c\/3gpp%252520Logo%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"3"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-4482854486573686847"},"published":{"$t":"2015-02-01T11:24:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-02-01T11:24:19.024+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Licensing"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent law"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Licensee Wins, But Loses, Termination Appeal"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"A full bench of three judges of the Federal Court of Australia has ruled that the Australian Patents Act 1990 does not authorise the termination of a licence covering multiple patents in circumstances where some, but not all, of the patents have ceased to be in force (Regency Media Pty Ltd v MPEG LA L.L.C [2014] FCAFC 183).\n\nThe decision is important because it would appear to settle the "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/02\/licensee-wins-but-loses-termination.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4482854486573686847"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/4482854486573686847"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/02\/licensee-wins-but-loses-termination.html","title":"Licensee Wins, But Loses, Termination Appeal"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh4.ggpht.com\/-MXmcyF6c5lE\/VM1x90v7C1I\/AAAAAAAADVQ\/i6uOC9cHd_U\/s72-c\/Crying%252520stick%252520figure%25255B5%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-8958938716979183239"},"published":{"$t":"2014-08-03T23:46:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-08-03T23:46:38.171+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Licensing"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"News"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Public research"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"CSIRO Scores US$16m Wi-Fi Win Over Cisco"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"In the most recent decision relating to the CSIRO Wi-Fi patent, a US Federal Court Judge in the Eastern District of Texas has ordered networking equipment manufacturer Cisco Systems, Inc, to pay the Australian research organisation US$16,243,069 (plus interest) in damages for infringements dating back to 2005.  \n\nThe bulk of the award relates to 18,073,797 consumer-grade products sold under the "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/08\/csiro-scores-us16m-wi-fi-win-over-cisco.html#comment-form","title":"1 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8958938716979183239"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8958938716979183239"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/08\/csiro-scores-us16m-wi-fi-win-over-cisco.html","title":"CSIRO Scores US$16m Wi-Fi Win Over Cisco"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.ggpht.com\/-arl8jENKrKE\/U948gtBatFI\/AAAAAAAADGQ\/ffNjOnpe0iY\/s72-c\/CSIRO%252520Wi-Fi%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"1"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-6654398229507846455"},"published":{"$t":"2014-07-20T18:23:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-07-20T18:23:46.565+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Licensing"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Litigation"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Do You Have a Licence to Sue?"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"It is very common to establish a corporate structure including two or more entities, in which one entity holds the assets of the business, while another entity acts as the operating or trading company.  I am not a corporate lawyer or a financial advisor, so I do not propose to go into the pros and cons of such arrangements in general.  The only important point to make for the purpose of this "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/07\/do-you-have-licence-to-sue.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6654398229507846455"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6654398229507846455"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/07\/do-you-have-licence-to-sue.html","title":"Do You Have a Licence to Sue?"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh5.ggpht.com\/-RYjoqbS8QwU\/U8t74wLWT4I\/AAAAAAAADFQ\/oMX6g-BszRk\/s72-c\/Patent%252520Police%25255B4%25255D.png?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-1449427216616461451"},"published":{"$t":"2014-04-06T19:35:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-04-06T19:35:00.958+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Competition law"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Licensing"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Pharmaceuticals"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Patents, Competition and Anticompetitive Conduct"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"Australia’s competition regulator, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), has instituted Federal Court proceedings against Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd (Pfizer) for alleged anticompetitive conduct (misuse of market power and exclusive dealing) in relation to its supply to pharmacies of blockbuster cholesterol drug atorvastatin.\n\nUntil May 2012, Pfizer held an Australian patent on "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/04\/patents-competition-and-anticompetitive.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/1449427216616461451"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/1449427216616461451"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/04\/patents-competition-and-anticompetitive.html","title":"Patents, Competition and Anticompetitive Conduct"}],"author":[{"name":{"$t":"Mark Summerfield"},"uri":{"$t":"https:\/\/plus.google.com\/116299882295651429004"},"email":{"$t":"noreply@blogger.com"},"gd$image":{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail","width":"32","height":"32","src":"\/\/lh4.googleusercontent.com\/-hzuCrd_SQBY\/AAAAAAAAAAI\/AAAAAAAAC14\/2R-Hb7Z8zys\/s512-c\/photo.jpg"}}],"media$thumbnail":{"xmlns$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.ggpht.com\/-IxBaxAWoHFE\/U0EfJzyCecI\/AAAAAAAAC-g\/JGQxaL0fKZA\/s72-c\/Free%252520Competition%25255B4%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}}]}});