JOLT Digest

In re Bilski Redefined?
By Briahna Gray – Edited by Anthony Kammer

In re Lewis Ferguson, Darryl Costin and Scott C. Harris
Federal Circuit, March 6, 2009, Serial No. 09/387,823
Order

On March 6, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that a marketing paradigm for multiple independent software companies fashioned by Lewis Ferguson, Darryl Costin, and Scott C. Harris was not patentable under the U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Judge Gajarsa, writing for the majority, applied the test set forth in In re Bilski opinion from October 30, 2008, which rejected the “useful, concrete and tangible result” test the Federal Circuit had established ten years earlier in State Street v. Signature Financial Group. Judge Newman argued in her concurrence that the majority redefines Bilski and unduly undermines legitimate tests established by precedent, introducing ambiguity into the law.

The authors at Mass Law Blog gave a brief description of the case and applaud the outcome. PatentlyO.com explores the case with commentary. The Digest covered the In re Bilski decision back in October.
(more…)

Mary J. Blige’s “Family Affair” Not a Copyright Violation
By Jia Ryu – Edited by Anthony Kammer

Jones v. Blige
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, March 9, 2009
Slip Opinion

On March 9, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a Michigan district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, Mary J. Blige in a copyright infringement case. Plaintiffs Leonard Jones and James E. White had filed suit against Defendants Mary J. Blige, Andre Young (aka “Dr. Dre”), Universal Music Group (“UMG”), and others for copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the songs were not substantially similar and that the Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish Defendants’ access to their work under the “corporate receipt” doctrine. Exclusive Rights offers commentary, focusing on the distinction made in this case between the corporate receipt doctrine and “bare corporate receipt.” The Michigan Messenger briefly summarized the opinion here. (more…)

Pennsylvania District Court Dismisses Boring v. Google, Inc.
By Aaron Dulles – Edited by Jay Gill

Boring v. Google, Inc.
Western District of Pennsylvania, February 17, 2009, No. 08-694
District Court Memorandum Opinion

A magistrate judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed all claims by Aaron and Christine Boring against Google for photographs taken of the Borings’ house and pool for use in the Street View feature of Google Maps. The Borings had filed suit in April 2008 after discovering pictures of their house on Google’s Street View. They noticed that the pictures were taken from their unpaved driveway, which had allegedly been marked with signs reading “Private Road” and “No Trespassing.”

Law.com cites EFF lawyer Kevin Bankston as stating that Google might, in some cases, be held liable for the actions of their Street View photographers. Calling the lawsuit silly, blogger Eric Goldman was nonetheless concerned that the magistrate judge appeared to punish the Borings for bringing increased attention to themselves by filing suit publicly. InformationWeek discussed the judge’s reasoning, reporting that the Borings had not used Google’s own opt-out procedure before filing suit. PlexLex notes that a side effect of the lawsuit is that news agencies’ use of the photos of the Borings’ property has been rendered more permissible as fair use of copyrighted material.

The Pittsburgh Metblogs raises the question of why Google is under fire in light of the amount of publicly available information on the Allegheny County website, and CNET News notes that Google has been under criticized for their Street View photography before.

(more…)

Amazon’s Constitutional Challenge to NY Tax Law Dismissed
By Andrew Ungberg – Edited by Sarah Sorscher
Amazon.com LLC v. New York Dept. of Tax and Finance, No. 601247/08
New York State Supreme Court, First Judicial District, January 12^th 2008
Order

On January 12^th, 2008, Judge Bransten dismissed Amazon’s lawsuit challenging a recently enacted New York State tax law.  The law requires certain sellers, who have no physical presence within the state, to collect sales tax if the seller has commissions-based independent contractors in-state that generate more than $10,000 worth of business in a given year.  Among other things, Amazon alleged the law violated the Commerce Clause because it imposes tax obligations on out-of-state sellers who lack a “substantial nexus” with New York. Judge Bransten rejected all of Amazon’s claims, noting that the statute was “carefully crafted to ensure that there is a sufficient basis for requiring collection of New York taxes . . . .” 

Law.com and Ars Technica provide an overview of the order and litigation thus far.

Erick Schonfeld of Tech Crunch comments, agreeing with New York’s motive but objecting to the means state legislators used to achieve them.  He writes that the law creates “bad precedent” insofar as it overstates the connection between Amazon and its “affiliates.”

(more…)

Federal Circuit Affirms Judgment Against Qualcomm, Limits Remedy of Patent Unenforceability
By Aaron Dulles - Edited By Stephanie Weiner
Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., Federal Circuit, December 1, 2008, No. 2007-1545 & 2008-1162
Slip opinion

On December 1, 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the District Court for the Southern District of California, no. 05-CV-1958, holding that Qualcomm breached its duty to disclose relevant video-compression technology patents during its participation in a standards-setting organization (“SSO”). However the Federal Circuit limited the scope of the remedy; rather than make the patent unenforceable against the world, the court held the patent unenforceable only against products compliant with the standard created by the SSO.

The judgment arises from a patent infringement suit brought against Broadcom in which Qualcomm asserted two patents concerning video compression technology. After a concealment effort that resulted in sanctions for litigation misconduct, it came to light that Qualcomm had participated in an SSO called the Joint Video Team (“JVT”) that was responsible for creating a video compression standard known as H.264. The H.264 standard was intended to be achievable at a baseline by anyone without requiring them to pay royalties. The court found that Qualcomm was required to disclose to the members of JVT any patents it held covering technology that “reasonably might be necessary” to practice the standard. Qualcomm was held to have waived its rights to the two patents by not disclosing those patents to JVT.

The case provides some clarity in a previously murky area: The Wall Street Journal Law Blog notes that this case clarifies the court’s willingness to find a duty to disclose in the SSO context, while Zusha Ellinson of The Recorder observes that it also clarifies the penalties for failing to disclose. The case is also being held up as a demonstration of the disastrous results of withholding evidence. (more…)