Dear Readers, As JOLT goes into the holidays, we’d like to ask you to take a few minutes and fill out our readership survey. You may have noticed our recent makeover, and we’re hoping to make other changes in response to reader feedback. Here’s your chance to weigh in. Thanks! Digest Staff
Read More...Archive for December, 2012
Federal Circuit Rules Section 102(g) Requires Little Enablement or Public Disclosure from Prior Inventors
Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.
By Dorothy Du – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the Eastern District of Virginia, which had granted defendant Cree’s motion for summary judgment on the invalidity of Fox Group’s (“Fox”) entire patent on low defect single crystal silicon carbide.
Read More...Federal Judge Rejects Verizon’s Challenge to New FCC Data Roaming Rule
Cellco P’ship v. FCC
By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a facial challenge to the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) new rule requiring “providers of commercial mobile-data services to offer data roaming agreements to other such providers on commercially reasonable terms.” The court held that the FCC had statutory authority to regulate data roaming, and that the flexibility of the new requirement does not amount to the imposition of common carrier requirements.
Read More...Flash Digest: News in Brief
By Kathleen McGuinness
Congress Passes Symbolic Resolution: “No UN Control of the Internet”
Supreme Court Will Hear Case on the Legality of Pay-for-Delay Practices
Preliminary PTO Finding Invalidates Key Apple Multitouch Patent
Read More...No Warrant Required for Undercover Agent to Use Concealed Recording Device, Says Ninth Circuit
United States v. Wahchumwah
By Pio Szamel – Edited by Geng Chen
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling by the Eastern District of Washington which held that the use of a concealed audiovisual recording device on the person of an undercover agent to record inside a defendant’s home without a warrant did not violate the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. In inviting the undercover agent into his home, the defendant “forfeited his expectation of privacy as to those areas that were knowingly expose[d] to” the undercover agent.
Read More...
