// API callback
jQuery111306593226878903806_1446510736663({"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","$t":""},"link":[{"rel":"http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/feeds\/posts\/summary"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Patent+litigation,Patent+litigation"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/search\/label\/Patent%20litigation"},{"rel":"hub","href":"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/"},{"rel":"next","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/summary?alt=json-in-script\u0026start-index=6\u0026max-results=5\u0026category=Patent+litigation,Patent+litigation"}],"author":[{"name":{"$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":{"$t":"22"},"openSearch$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":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-6028633367553105903"},"published":{"$t":"2015-01-18T20:01:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2015-01-18T20:01:25.394+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Computer programs"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Genetic technology"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Law reform"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"News"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Obviousness"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent law"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patentology admin"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Trolls"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"US"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"2015 in Preview – Predictions for the Year Ahead"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"Last week I looked at the year just passed, and compared my predictions with reality.  This week I want to look at the coming year in patents, to preview some anticipated developments, and to make new predictions for 2015.\n\nHere, in brief, are some of the developments that I will be watching this year:\n\nthe application to the High Court by Yvonne D’Arcy, for special leave to appeal the Full "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/01\/2015-in-preview-predictions-for-year.html#comment-form","title":"2 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6028633367553105903"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/6028633367553105903"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2015\/01\/2015-in-preview-predictions-for-year.html","title":"2015 in Preview – Predictions for the Year Ahead"}],"author":[{"name":{"$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$media":"http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/","url":"http:\/\/lh3.ggpht.com\/-ijSn-C4vHNw\/VLt1z84g1aI\/AAAAAAAADU8\/psiU3PK3nPU\/s72-c\/Crystal%252520Ball%25255B4%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"2"}},{"id":{"$t":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1574330275867774277.post-2936363977832723447"},"published":{"$t":"2014-12-31T16:18:00.000+11:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-12-31T16:18:17.950+11:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"News"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent law"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patentology admin"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patents and society"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"2014 in Review, and How My Predictions Panned Out"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"Another year over and (although I know everyone says it) this one really has just flown by!\n\nOn 1 January 2014 I posted a review of 2013, and a look ahead to what was then the upcoming year.  In doing so, I made a number of predictions, so it is now interesting to look back and see how I went, as well as reviewing the major events of 2014 that I may not have foreseen.\n\nOverall, I think that I did"},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/12\/2014-in-review-and-how-my-predictions.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/2936363977832723447"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/2936363977832723447"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/12\/2014-in-review-and-how-my-predictions.html","title":"2014 in Review, and How My Predictions Panned Out"}],"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:\/\/lh6.ggpht.com\/-9nLwminqmxo\/VKOGjd55TYI\/AAAAAAAADUo\/M09Wfw0W8XM\/s72-c\/Looking%252520back%25255B4%25255D.jpg?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-8075771833264230659"},"published":{"$t":"2014-05-04T20:14:00.000+10:00"},"updated":{"$t":"2014-05-04T20:14:11.783+10:00"},"category":[{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Attorney fees"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Australia"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Costs"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent law"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Patent litigation"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"Trolls"},{"scheme":"http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#","term":"US"}],"title":{"type":"text","$t":"Taming the Trolls – Awarding Attorney Fees in Patent Cases"},"summary":{"type":"text","$t":"The big patent-related news in the US this past week has been the Supreme Court’s dual decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health \u0026 Fitness, Inc. [PDF, 112kB] and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. [PDF, 80kB], in which the court confirmed that district courts have discretion to determine whether a case is ‘exceptional’, such that attorney fees may be awarded against a "},"link":[{"rel":"replies","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/05\/taming-trolls-awarding-attorney-fees-in.html#comment-form","title":"0 Comments"},{"rel":"edit","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8075771833264230659"},{"rel":"self","type":"application/atom+xml","href":"http:\/\/www.blogger.com\/feeds\/1574330275867774277\/posts\/default\/8075771833264230659"},{"rel":"alternate","type":"text/html","href":"http:\/\/blog.patentology.com.au\/2014\/05\/taming-trolls-awarding-attorney-fees-in.html","title":"Taming the Trolls – Awarding Attorney Fees in Patent Cases"}],"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:\/\/lh6.ggpht.com\/-rjip7kvutos\/U2YRzpxRUkI\/AAAAAAAADAI\/Ejwmo8OiaGU\/s72-c\/Lawyer%252520and%252520Money%25255B4%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800","height":"72","width":"72"},"thr$total":{"$t":"0"}}]}});