JOLT Digest

D.C. Appeals Court Sets New Standard for Unmasking Anonymous Online Speakers

By Anthony Kammer – Edited by Evelyn Breithaupt
Solers, Inc. v. Doe, No. 07-CV-159 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 13, 2009)
Opinion

On August 13, 2009, the D.C. Court of Appeals remanded Solers, Inc.’s case against an anonymous speaker and provided the lower court with a new standard for determining when an anonymous speaker’s identity may be revealed.

The Volokh Conspiracy notes that although the court limits its decision to defamation claims, the court’s logic would apply to many other forms of anonymous speech. The Citizen Media Law Project points out that this case is factually distinct from many online defamation suits because the comments at issue were not posted on a blog or other public platform. Newsroomlawblog covers the recent decision and has earlier reported that there is a growing trend for courts to protect anonymous speakers unless the plaintiff meets some elevated standard. Ars Technica and Exclusive Rights provide additional commentary.

(more…)

Federal Circuit Overturns Earlier Decision and Holds No Liability for Exporting Components of Method Patents

By Evan Kubota – Edited by Sarah Sorscher
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 2007-1296, -1347 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2009)
Slip Opinion

On August 19, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), a statute providing for liability for exporting components of patented inventions, does not apply to method patents. The ruling overturned the Federal Circuit’s prior panel decision in Union Carbide Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A Federal Circuit panel also reversed the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of invalidity, restored the jury’s finding of infringement, and remanded the case for determination of damages.

Section 271(f) imposes infringement liability upon anyone who “supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States” components of a patented invention and induces their combination in a manner that would infringe the patent if it occurred within the United States.  It was intended to close the loophole created by a Supreme Court decision, Deepsouth Packing Co., v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972), that had rejected infringement liability where unassembled parts of a patented shrimp deveining machine were shipped abroad.  In 2007, the Supreme Court had expressly declined to answer the question of whether a method or process patent “qualifies as a patented invention” under section 271(f).  Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007).

Patently-O, Patent Prospector, and Conflict of Laws.net summarize the decision.  The AmLaw Litigation Daily provides an overview of the stakes for U.S. business interests, and a brief comment from a lawyer for one of the amici. (more…)

Court of Appeals Vacates Obviousness Jury Verdict

By Stephanie Weiner – Edited by Evelyn Breithaupt
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 2009-1076 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2009)
Slip Opinion

On August 14, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court for the District of Delaware’s order of summary judgment for the plaintiff on anticipation and vacated its entry of a jury verdict that a dependent claim was invalid for obviousness, but that the independent claim from which it stemmed was non-obvious. The Federal Circuit determined that the obviousness judgment was based upon irreconcilably inconsistent jury verdicts. This case raises the controversial issue of whether juries are appropriate in patent validity cases.

IP Watchdog notes that while the Federal Circuit decision itself is not surprising, it is rare to see a decision out of the District of Delaware that is so “obviously flawed.” The Patent Prospector examines some of the evidentiary issues raised on appeal.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog gives some useful background of the case. (more…)

By Evan Kubota

Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon Join Opposition to Google Settlement

The New York Times reports that Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have joined library associations, nonprofits, and individuals in opposing the Google Books settlement in The Authors Guild v. Google. The settlement, which would allow Google to provide digital versions of millions of books, still requires court approval and remains the subject of a Department of Justice antitrust investigation. The opposition group, tentatively called the Open Book Alliance, will argue to the Department of Justice that the settlement agreement is anticompetitive.

Internet Law Group Brings Suit Against Unidentified Hackers

“John Doe” suits brought against unidentified Eastern European hackers may offer a glimpse of the hackers’ targets and techniques through subpoenas against defrauded banks. However, the banks may challenge the subpoenas in order to protect customer privacy. Unspam Technologies, a group that recently filed suit against bank hackers in the Eastern District of Virginia, hopes to improve bank security and potentially identify the hackers. The New York Times outlines the stakes and key players in the case, Project Honey Pot v. Does.

Mozilla Versus Microsoft in EU Browser Investigation

Ryan Paul at Ars Technica criticizes Mozilla’s complaints regarding Microsoft’s Internet Explorer bundling and default-setting practices. Paul not only argues that many of Mozilla’s complaints “lack substance,” but also claims that the European Union has no business intervening to encourage competition because Mozilla’s Firefox browser has a 22 percent market share “amidst an increasingly competitive browser market.” In contrast, Mitchell Baker of Mozilla argues that the Firefox browser is at a disadvantage because Internet Explorer has a “uniquely privileged position on Windows installations.”

Federal Circuit Holds Blackboard Patent Claims Invalid for Indefiniteness and Failure to Disclose Sufficient Structure

By Dmitriy Tishyevich – Edited by Amanda Rice
Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., No. 2008-1368, -1396 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2009)
Slip Opinion

On July 27, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’s partial summary judgment, holding that claims 1 through 35 of the patent were invalid for indefiniteness. However, the court reversed the jury’s finding that Desire2Learn had infringed claims 36 through 38, holding that, under proper construction, these claims were anticipated and rendered obvious by prior art.

Patent law blogs PatentlyO and The Patent Prospector summarize the opinion. Inside Higher Ed provides commentary about the decision. Sakai Blog speculates about Blackboard’s motives and the future of Blackboard’s numerous patent disputes.
(more…)