<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.lexblog.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss 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/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>PharmaPatents</title>
	
	<link>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com</link>
	<description>Timely Insight on Emerging Legal Developments</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:00:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<feedburner:info uri="pharmapatents" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/index.xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>Pharmapatents</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo4.gif">Subscribe with My Yahoo!</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subext.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.newsgator.com/images/ngsub1.gif">Subscribe with NewsGator</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://feeds.my.aol.com/add.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://o.aolcdn.com/favorites.my.aol.com/webmaster/ffclient/webroot/locale/en-US/images/myAOLButtonSmall.gif">Subscribe with My AOL</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/index.xml" src="http://www.bloglines.com/images/sub_modern11.gif">Subscribe with Bloglines</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.netvibes.com/subscribe.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.netvibes.com/img/add2netvibes.gif">Subscribe with Netvibes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://buttons.googlesyndication.com/fusion/add.gif">Subscribe with Google</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.pageflakes.com/subscribe.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.pageflakes.com/ImageFile.ashx?instanceId=Static_4&amp;fileName=ATP_blu_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Pageflakes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.plusmo.com/add?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://plusmo.com/res/graphics/fbplusmo.gif">Subscribe with Plusmo</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/hp/AddRSS.aspx?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://img.tfd.com/hp/addToTheFreeDictionary.gif">Subscribe with The Free Dictionary</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bitty.com/manual/?contenttype=rssfeed&amp;contentvalue=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.bitty.com/img/bittychicklet_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Bitty Browser</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.live.com/?add=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/x1piYkpqHC_35nIp1gLE68-wvzLZO8iXl_JMledmJQXP-XTBOLfmQv4zhj4MhcWEJh_GtoBIiAl1Mjh-ndp9k47If7hTaFno0mxW9_i3p_5qQw">Subscribe with Live.com</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://mix.excite.eu/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://image.excite.co.uk/mix/addtomix.gif">Subscribe with Excite MIX</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.webwag.com/wwgthis.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.webwag.com/images/wwgthis.gif">Subscribe with Webwag</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.podcastready.com/oneclick_bookmark.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.podcastready.com/images/podcastready_button.gif">Subscribe with Podcast Ready</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.wikio.com/subscribe?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.wikio.com/shared/img/add2wikio.gif">Subscribe with Wikio</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.dailyrotation.com/index.php?feed=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pharmapatentsblog.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.dailyrotation.com/rss-dr2.gif">Subscribe with Daily Rotation</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>More On Supplemental Examination: The USPTO’s Cost and Volume Estimates</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/Nk_Vrn1KlAc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/03/more-on-supplemental-examination-the-usptos-cost-and-volume-estimates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:00:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act (AIA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Estimate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supplemental Examination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=958</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Earlier this week I provided a summary of the USPTO&#8217;s proposed rules to implement the Supplemental Examination provisions of the America Invents Act. The Federal Register Notice also includes a discussion of the USPTO&#8217;s estimate of how much a Request for Supplemental Examination will...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/Nk_Vrn1KlAc" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/03/more-on-supplemental-examination-the-usptos-cost-and-volume-estimates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/03/more-on-supplemental-examination-the-usptos-cost-and-volume-estimates/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Supplemental Examination: Airing Your Dirty Laundry?</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/yun_Cuostfs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/01/supplemental-examination-airing-your-dirty-laundry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Inequitable Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act (AIA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supplemental Examination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=983</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[As I was reviewing the USPTO&#8217;s  proposed rules to implement the Supplemental Examination provisions of the America Invents Act, one issue that crossed my mind is the problems that could arise if a patent holder&#8217;s initial Request for Supplemental Examination is not granted. In this...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/yun_Cuostfs" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/01/supplemental-examination-airing-your-dirty-laundry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/02/01/supplemental-examination-airing-your-dirty-laundry/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Supplemental Examination</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/1KnnU3rz1fU/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/30/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-supplemental-examination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 09:00:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act (AIA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supplemental Examination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=955</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The USPTO has issued its proposed rules to implement the Supplemental Examination provisions of the America Invents Act. As I noted last week, the same rules package sets a new fee for ex parte reexamination at $17,750. Now that the shock of that amount has worn off, I am ready to take a look at......<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/1KnnU3rz1fU" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/30/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-supplemental-examination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/30/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-supplemental-examination/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Preissuance Submissions In Pending Applications</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/ll6Vp4z7K3s/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/26/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-preissuance-submissions-in-pending-applications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:00:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preissuance Submissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prior Art]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=913</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 5, 2012, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice with proposed rules to implement provisions of the America Invents Act relating to preissuance submissions of publications in a pending patent application. The proposed rules add new 37 CFR § 1.290, revise 37 CFR § 1.291, and remove 37...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/ll6Vp4z7K3s" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/26/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-preissuance-submissions-in-pending-applications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/26/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-preissuance-submissions-in-pending-applications/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Will You Pay $17,750 For Ex Parte Reexamination?</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/-IIjUU_56tY/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/25/will-you-pay-17750-for-ex-parte-reexamination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reexamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Fees]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=944</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Today&#8217;s Federal Register includes the USPTO&#8217;s proposed rules to implement the Supplemental Examination provisions of The America Invents Act. I am in London for the C5 Biosimilars Forum, so I have not been able to read the 70 page notice, but the proposed new ex parte reexamination fee...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/-IIjUU_56tY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/25/will-you-pay-17750-for-ex-parte-reexamination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/25/will-you-pay-17750-for-ex-parte-reexamination/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Weighs In On Copyright Issues</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/GqDSjvMHGPg/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/24/uspto-weighs-in-on-copyright-issues/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Office Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Position Paper]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=934</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week was a big week in U.S. copyright law. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Golan v. Holder, upholding § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which in effect gave copyright protection to certain preexisting works of Berne member countries that are protected in their...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/GqDSjvMHGPg" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/24/uspto-weighs-in-on-copyright-issues/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/24/uspto-weighs-in-on-copyright-issues/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Companies May Be Disappointed By USPTO’s Proposed Rules For Inventor Oath/Declaration</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/3H730iWnSQs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/19/companies-may-be-disappointed-by-usptos-proposed-rules-for-inventor-oathdeclaration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:00:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Assignment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Declaration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inventor's Oath]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=894</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[The USPTO has published proposed rules to implement changes to the inventor oath/declaration requirements contained in the America Invents Act. The proposed rules recognize the changes to 35 USC §§ 115 and 118, but also reflect 35 §§ 111(a) and 371, which were not amended. Companies who were hoping...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/3H730iWnSQs" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/19/companies-may-be-disappointed-by-usptos-proposed-rules-for-inventor-oathdeclaration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/19/companies-may-be-disappointed-by-usptos-proposed-rules-for-inventor-oathdeclaration/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Estoppel Against Ex Parte Reexamination</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/OrLj5gEJmbE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/17/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-changes-to-ex-parte-reexamination-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:00:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Estoppel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ex Parte Reexamination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inter Partes Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Post-Grant Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Third Party Requester]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=867</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 5, 2012, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice with proposed rules to implement provisions of the America Invents Act relating to the citation of prior art and written statements in a granted patent.  While I wrote about those changes previously, the same rules package includes...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/OrLj5gEJmbE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/17/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-changes-to-ex-parte-reexamination-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/17/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-changes-to-ex-parte-reexamination-rules/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Proposed AIA Implementation Rules: Citation Of Prior Art And Written Statements</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/u6ta0YwxpFo/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/13/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-citation-of-prior-art-and-written-statements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 09:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO Proposed Rule Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citation of Prior Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Scope Statement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leahy-Smith America Invents Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=860</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 5, 2012, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice with proposed rules to implement provisions of the America Invents Act relating to the citation of prior art and written statements in a granted patent. The USPTO will consider written comments received by March 5, 2012. (The same...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/u6ta0YwxpFo" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/13/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-citation-of-prior-art-and-written-statements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/13/proposed-aia-implementation-rules-citation-of-prior-art-and-written-statements/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments In Section 145 Case (Kappos v. Hyatt)</title>
		<link>http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~3/gajNrPIZNxE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/11/supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-section-145-case-kappos-v-hyatt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Courtenay Brinckerhoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Board of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hyatt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 145]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standard Of Review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/?p=841</guid>
		
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[On January 9, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kappos v. Hyatt. The issues before the Court relate to the scope of new evidence that a patent applicant can introduce against the USPTO in a district court action under 35 USC § 145 (“Civil Action to Obtain a Patent”) and the degree...<br/>
<br/>
&nbsp<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Pharmapatents/~4/gajNrPIZNxE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/11/supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-section-145-case-kappos-v-hyatt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2012/01/11/supreme-court-hears-oral-arguments-in-section-145-case-kappos-v-hyatt/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

