<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Yale Law Library - Reference Blog : Judicial Reform</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Judicial+Reform/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Judicial Reform</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 SP1 (Build: 30415.43)</generator><item><title>Were patent appeals judges unconstitutionally appointed?</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/04/28/could-constitutional-flaw-unravel-eight-years-of-patent-board-rulings.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:42:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:158</guid><dc:creator>ct286</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may have a major problem on its
hands -- the possibly unconstitutional appointment of nearly two-thirds
of its patent appeals judges.&amp;nbsp; Read more about this case &lt;a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1209114346908"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp; &lt;span id="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay" class="DocumentBody"&gt;Translogic Technology, &lt;/span&gt;a company whose patent was rejected, is raising this issue in a petition to the &lt;span id="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay" class="DocumentBody"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;U.S. Supreme Court.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A copy of the petition is available for viewing at the Law Library Reference Desk.&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=158" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Practice/default.aspx">Practice</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/U.S.+Supreme+Court/default.aspx">U.S. Supreme Court</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Judicial+Reform/default.aspx">Judicial Reform</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Patents/default.aspx">Patents</category></item><item><title>Mexico's Senate Approves Judicial Reform</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/03/10/68.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:53:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:68</guid><dc:creator>Tom Boone</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;Mexican senators on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a sweeping
judicial reform that would introduce public, oral trials and guarantee
the presumption of innocence. The Senate voted 71 to 25 in favor of the
measure, after a clause that would have let police search homes without
warrants was deleted from it. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/latinamerica/la-fg-mexjustice7mar07,0,2541327.story"&gt;Click here for more of this story&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Official Website of the Mexican Senate: &lt;a href="http://www.senado.gob.mx/"&gt;http://www.senado.gob.mx/&lt;/a&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=68" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Judicial+Reform/default.aspx">Judicial Reform</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Mexico/default.aspx">Mexico</category></item></channel></rss>