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.

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.

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.

Fifth Circuit Says First Amendment May Protect Domain Names

Gibson v. Texas Dep’t of Ins. – Div. of Workers’ Comp.
By Michael Hoven – Edited by Daniella Adler

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the Northern District of Texas, which had dismissed John Gibson’s claim that a Texas law barring him from using the words “Texas” and “workers’ compensation” or “workers’ comp.” in his domain name violated the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

Judges Approves Google’s $22.5 Million Settlement with FTC for Safari Privacy Violation

United States v. Google, Inc.
By Casey Holzapfel – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a proposed consent order between the United States and Google that requires Google to pay a $22.5 million civil penalty. Amicus curiae Consumer Watchdog was granted leave to submit a brief challenging the stipulated consent order, after it was filed in August. District Judge Susan Illston was not persuaded by Consumer Watchdog’s brief, however, and rejected its challenge.