A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

By Kayla Haran – Edited by Jaehwan Park

Pokémon Go Captures Full Google Account Permissions on iOS

Senate Committee Holds Hearing on FCC’s Proposed Broadband Privacy Rules

Federal Judge Suppresses Evidence Obtained Using Stingray in First Such Decision

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

The Federal Circuit, in the closely divided en banc decision of SCA v. First Quality, held that Congress had authorized laches as a defense against legal remedy for patent infringement. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent holding that for copyright law, laches only applies to legal remedy when Congress hasn’t established a statute of limitations. The Supreme Court has granted cert to review the Federal Circuit’s holding.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

U.S. and E.U. officials formally approved the “Privacy Shield” this week, a new agreement governing the transfer of data between Europe and the United States. The final adoption of the transatlantic agreement comes after several years of negotiations, which were accelerated last October when the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated a key part of the U.S.-E.U. “Safe Harbor,” an agreement that had previously enabled American companies to transfer data from the European Union without running afoul of its stricter privacy laws.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Federal Circuit Flash Digest

 

By Frederick Ding — Edited by Jaehwan Park

 

Patent Assertion Entity Not a “Patentee” By Itself

 

Induced Infringement Verdict Not Defeated by Defendant’s Unreasonable Belief in Noninfringement

 

Continuations Can Be Filed on Same Day as Earlier Application’s Issuance

Read More...

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: Robert ScobleCC BY 2.0

By Emily Chan – Edited by Filippo Raso

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-03561, 2016 WL 3181206 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2016). Motion hosted by Law360.

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 21 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Kayla Haran – Edited by Jaehwan Park

Pokémon Go Captures Full Google Account Permissions on iOS

The hugely successful location-based augmented-reality mobile game Pokémon Go was released in the U.S. on July 6 and has since surpassed Twitter in daily active users. On July 8, blogger Adam Reeve discovered that the iOS version of Pokémon Go had full access privileges to the Google accounts of users who signed in using those accounts. Android users appear not to have encountered the same phenomenon. After several major news outlets reported on the issue, Pokémon Go developer Niantic released a statement confirming the reports and promising a forthcoming update that will limit account permissions to basic contact information, such as a user’s name and email address. The statement also promised that in spite of the broad permissions granted in the present version of the game, “Google has verified that no other information has been received or accessed by Pokémon Go or Niantic.” (more…)

Posted On Jul - 17 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

UnknownBy Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Henry Thomas

The Supreme Court, granting cert. for its 2016 term, is taking up the question from SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC of whether laches is available as a defense to patent infringement. The IPWatchdog blog provides a brief primer on laches, as relevant to patent law.

The Case

This case arose from an appeal of the en banc decision of the federal court in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 13-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 18, 2015). In that opinion, a divided court held 6 to 5 that laches remains a potential defense in a patent suit to legal remedy, notwithstanding the recent supreme court decision of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. C. 1962 (2014), which held that laches is not a defense to legal remedy under the Copyright Act. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 17 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

European CommissionBy Danielle Kehl – Edited By Kayla Haran

U.S. and E.U. officials formally approved the “Privacy Shield” this week, a new agreement governing the transfer of data between Europe and the United States. The final adoption of the transatlantic agreement comes after several years of negotiations, which were accelerated last October when the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated a key part of the U.S.-E.U. “Safe Harbor,” an agreement that had previously enabled American companies to transfer data from the European Union without running afoul of its stricter privacy laws. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 17 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST

hammerBy Frederick Ding — Edited by Jaehwan Park

Patent Assertion Entity Not a “Patentee” By Itself

In Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., Nos. 2015-1844, 2015-1861 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that Diamond’s agreements with the original assignee of the patent, Sanyo, did not make Diamond a “patentee” with standing to sue for infringement without joining Sanyo as a party. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 15 - 2016 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Oracle Renews Motion

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="213"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Kayla Haran - Edited by Jaehwan Park Pokémon Go Captures ...

Unknown

Laches As a Defense

By Evan Tallmadge - Edited by Henry Thomas The Supreme Court, ...

European Commission

U.S. and E.U. Leader

By Danielle Kehl – Edited By Kayla Haran U.S. and E.U. ...

hammer

Federal Circuit Flas

By Frederick Ding — Edited by Jaehwan Park Patent Assertion Entity ...