{"id":3457,"date":"2010-12-06T20:38:05","date_gmt":"2010-12-07T02:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3457"},"modified":"2010-12-06T20:38:05","modified_gmt":"2010-12-07T02:38:05","slug":"hocus-pocus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=3457","title":{"rendered":"Hocus Pocus"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Back in September 2009 in the case of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Nystrom v. TREX<\/span>, Chief Judge Rader wrote an\u00a0opinion (or &#8220;additonal views&#8221;\u00a0at the end of\u00a0an opinion that he authored for the panel)\u00a0that addressed claim vitiation.\u00a0 See the previous posts here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2030\">Vitiation Part I<\/a>] [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2039\">Vitiation Part II<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>In another\u00a0oral argument from 2007 in <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Wleklinski v. Targus<\/span>, 2007-1273 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2007), Judge Rader commented on the Federal Circuit&#8217;s treatment of claim vitiation and the related &#8220;hocus pocus&#8221; that makes it a legal\u00a0issue\u00a0that can therefore be handled under\u00a0summary judgment:\u00a0 [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/12\/2007-1273-targus-excerpt.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>You can read the Targus opinion here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/07-1273.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>You can listen to the entire oral argument here:\u00a0 [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2007-1273.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Back in September 2009 in the case of Nystrom v. TREX, Chief Judge Rader wrote an\u00a0opinion (or &#8220;additonal views&#8221;\u00a0at the end of\u00a0an opinion that he authored for the panel)\u00a0that addressed claim vitiation.\u00a0 See the previous posts here: [Vitiation Part I] [Vitiation Part II]. In another\u00a0oral argument from 2007 in Wleklinski v. Targus, 2007-1273 (Fed. Cir. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3457"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3457"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3473,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3457\/revisions\/3473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}