<?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>Global IP Watch - Intellectual Property for International Professionals &#187; Inconsistent Jury Verdicts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalipwatch.com/tag/inconsistent-jury-verdicts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com</link>
	<description>Intellectual Property for International Professionals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:06:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>CAFC Remands Inconsistent Jury Verdict Which Found Dependent Claims Obvious, But Not Antecedent Independent Claims</title>
		<link>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 May 2010 04:34:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Pat Bickley</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[United States: Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Analogous Arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claim Construction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inconsistent Jury Verdicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obviousness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.globalipwatch.com/?p=1387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Comparer Corp. v. Antec, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&#8220;CAFC&#8221;) upheld the District Court&#8217;s claim construction but vacated the jury&#8217;s verdicts on obviousness as irreconcilably inconsistent, remanding the case for a new trial on invalidity. Comaper had brought suit against Antec alleging willful infringement of multiple claims of U.S. Patent [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalipwatch.com/2010/05/22/cafc-remands-inconsistent-jury-verdict-which-found-dependent-claims-obvious-but-not-antecedent-independent-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

