<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Employment suit against Jon Bon Jovi remanded to state court: State law pleadings containing facts about an undecided federal copyright suit not grounds for removal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/05/employment-suit-against-jon-bon-jovi-remanded-to-state-court-state-law-pleadings-containing-facts-about-an-undecided-federal-copyright-suit-not-grounds-for-removal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/05/employment-suit-against-jon-bon-jovi-remanded-to-state-court-state-law-pleadings-containing-facts-about-an-undecided-federal-copyright-suit-not-grounds-for-removal/</link>
	<description>A copyright law blog covering litigation, policy and academia</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:29:41 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JOLT Digest &#187; AFL Philadelphia LLCl v. Krause &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</title>
		<link>http://www.exclusiverights.net/2009/05/employment-suit-against-jon-bon-jovi-remanded-to-state-court-state-law-pleadings-containing-facts-about-an-undecided-federal-copyright-suit-not-grounds-for-removal/comment-page-1/#comment-32760</link>
		<dc:creator>JOLT Digest &#187; AFL Philadelphia LLCl v. Krause &#124; Harvard Journal of Law &#38; Technology</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:11:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exclusiverights.net/?p=1420#comment-32760</guid>
		<description>[...] attention to Judge Baylson&#8217;s inclusion of Bon Jovi song references in the opinion. An earlier post by Ex©lusive Rights summarizes the ongoing Pennsylvania State Court litigation between the same [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] attention to Judge Baylson&#8217;s inclusion of Bon Jovi song references in the opinion. An earlier post by Ex©lusive Rights summarizes the ongoing Pennsylvania State Court litigation between the same [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
