Written by: Evelyn Y. Chang
Edited by: Jessica Vosgerchian

In March of 2012, British Petroleum sought court enforcement of a subpoena for “any conversation or discussion” made by researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (“WHOI”) regarding their studies on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. WHOI and its researchers were neither parties nor witnesses in the ongoing lawsuits related to the Deepwater spill, but they had contributed data to a government report on the spill, and results of their studies had been cited in the lawsuits. WHOI argued that they had already provided all the information needed to test the study’s veracity, but BP asserted that additional materials, including records of internal deliberations made by the researchers before they published the studies, were necessary for them to challenge the studies’ results. The court applied a balancing test that weighed BP’s need for the requested information against the burden placed on WHOI, and required the WHOI researchers disclose internal pre-publication materials relating to the studies cited in the government report.[i]

Last fall, Science published an editorial by several WHOI researchers whose materials were among those requested by the subpoena. The WHOI researchers argued that BP’s subpoena request amounted to an attack on the independence of scientific inquiry, and advocated for federal legislation to protect researchers from legal harassment when their results contradict entrenched interests. While legislation is the most straightforward method by which the government can protect scientific independence, common law already provides some protection for researchers who may find themselves in a situation similar to that of WHOI.

Discovery of evidence from third parties is nothing new, and many courts hold that the right to obtain evidence from non-parties is sometimes necessary to ensure a fair trial. While the Supreme Court has not directly addressed scientific privilege, lower federal courts have applied a balancing test that weighs the requesting party’s need for the information against the burden that would be placed on the receiving party.[ii] When determining what information must be disclosed, courts have considered several factors, including the completeness of the information, confidentiality of sources, and chilling effects on research.[iii] (more…)

Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
By Pio Szamel – Edited by Laura Fishwick

Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (S.D.N.Y. April 18, 2013)
Slip opinion

On April 18, 2013 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York once again granted summary judgment for YouTube in Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., on remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Louis L. Stanton held that YouTube did not have any actual knowledge of any specific infringements of the Viacom content in suit, nor was it willfully blind to any such specific infringements. He also held that YouTube did not have the “right and ability to control” infringing activity for the purposes of 17 USC §512(c)(1)(B), and that YouTube’s transcoding of clips for viewing on mobile devices is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 USC §512(c).

Reuters has further coverage of the decision, which is hailed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Eric Goldman. JOLT Digest previously covered the District Court’s prior grant of summary judgment in favor of YouTube, and the Second Circuit’s decision to vacate part of that prior order and remand for further proceedings. (more…)

Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc.
By Erica Larson – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale

Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., No. 12-1397 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2013)
Slip opinion

Photo By: Nate Grigg – CC BY 2.0

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Nevada District Court, which ruled that claims 13 and 15 of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bayer Schering Pharma AG (“Bayer”) U.S. Patent RE37,564 were not invalid for obviousness. The patent claimed a combination of synthetic hormones and dosing regimens used by Bayer in the Yaz birth control pill. Three generic manufacturers—Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., and Lupin Ltd.—filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”) with the FDA, including Paragraph IV certifications, 21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), asserting that the patent was invalid.

The Federal Circuit held, first, that the patented combinations were obvious in view of prior art:  two foreign patent applications and four scholarly articles. Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. at 11. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the knowledge disclosed in the prior art to craft Bayer’s combination and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Id. at 11–12. Second, the court rejected Bayer’s arguments on secondary indicia of non-obviousness relating to unexpected results, expert skepticism, industry praise, and copying. Id. at 10, 15.

Reuters and Bloomberg put this ruling into context by describing Bayer’s continuing legal troubles with Yasmin, the precursor to Yaz; the company faces thousands of legal claims that Yasmin increases the risk of blood clots. (more…)

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
By Alex Shank – Edited by David LeRay

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398 (U.S. Apr. 15, 2013)
Transcript of Oral Argument

Photo By: brett jordan – CC BY 2.0

On Monday, April 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to determine the validity of a patent encompassing the use of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these genes correlate strongly with the development of breast and ovarian cancers. As the patent owner, Myriad Genetics, Inc. (“Myriad”) possesses and exercises the exclusive right to sell diagnostic testing kits based on these genes.

The ACLU first challenged the constitutionality of the Myriad patent in the District Court of the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”), claiming that the patent violated the First Amendment. The SDNY invalidated the patent on other grounds, holding that the genes were “products of nature” and thus not patentable subject matter. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed that “comparing” gene sequences was unpatentable as an “abstract mental step” but reversed the SDNY by holding that Myriad’s “screening” claims were patentable. After deciding Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., the Supreme Court vacated the CAFC’s earlier decision and remanded the case to be decided in light of Mayo. The CAFC reaffirmed that isolated genes were patentable as “markedly different” from genes in the human body and reaffirmed its earlier position on the various method patents. The ACLU appealed to the Supreme Court.

SCOTUSblog comments on the Supreme Court’s skepticism regarding the validity of the Myriad patents. The New York Times offers a summary of the oral argument and background on the case. Nature newsblog and Patently-O predict how the Supreme Court may narrow the scope of its holding to a particular class of genetic material. JOLT Digest previously commented on the implications of a ban on gene patents. (more…)

By Charlie Stiernberg

Digital Public Library of America Goes Live, Sans Fanfare

The Digital Public Library of America (“DPLA”) website went live late last week; however, the celebration was postponed in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, reports the Harvard Crimson. After more than two years of planning, the DPLA became the first national digital library in the world—with about two million books, pictures, manuscripts, and other materials. The staff is working to overcome copyright obstacles to add more works. A ceremony was to take place on April 18 and 19 at the Boston Public Library, the first public library in the country. But given its proximity to the site of the bombings, organizers decided to reschedule the event for the fall.

ITC Rules Apple iPhone did not Violate Motorola Patents

The International Trade Commission (“ITC”) terminated its investigation into Apple’s alleged infringement of Motorola U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 (“the ‘862 patent”), “Sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device,” finding no violation of section 337, reports Ars Technica. The ‘862 patent was the last patent remaining of the six included in the original complaint filed by Motorola in 2010. In a notice issued April 22, the ITC found that the ‘862 patent is obvious in view of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,052,464 and 5,894,298. The case is one piece of a larger patent battle between Apple and Motorola, being waged in courts worldwide.

Parties Race to Register “Boston Strong” Trademark with USPTO

Less than a week after the Boston Marathon bombing, two Massachusetts parties have applied to trademark the phrase “Boston Strong” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), reports the Huffington Post. The first application, filed by Born Into It, Inc., is a standard character mark for “clothing and accessories.” The second application, filed by an individual, is also a standard character mark for “[i]mprinting messages on T-shirts.” The hashtag #BostonStrong has garnered a strong following on Twitter over the last week. The Huffington Post notes that similar applications following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks were denied by the USPTO.