Federal Circuit finds No Standing in Case Challenging First-to-File Patent Regime
The Federal Circuit held on July 1 that MadStad Engineering lacked standing in a declaratory judgment lawsuit against the USPTO claiming that the new “first-to-file” system is unconstitutional. “First-to-file” came into effect as part of the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) on March 16, 2013, replacing the previous “first-to-invent” system. Madstad argued that the new rule violates Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives inventors exclusive rights, because it awards the patent to the first person to file regardless of who the actual inventor is. The court chose not to rule on the issue, holding that Madstad’s stated injuries—higher computer security costs in avoiding stolen ideas and greater time and effort from rushing to file patents—were not sufficient to provide standing.
Argentina becomes the First Latin American Country to Block The Pirate Bay
On June 30, the Argentine National Communications Commission (NCC) ordered Internet Service Providers to block access to 12 domains of The Pirate Bay on copyright grounds. The order came after an injunction by a district court in the case brought by the Argentina Chamber of Phonographic Producers, an industry group representing major and independent labels. Argentina is the first in Latin America, but one of many countries to have blocked the site.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Google Appeal in Street View Case
On June 30, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal by Google in a class action suit alleging violation of the federal Wiretap act. Their denial follows a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejecting a motion to dismiss. The suit claimed that Google ran afoul of wiretap law when its Street View cars collected information from unsecured WiFi networks including passwords, usernames, and emails. Google compared the data transmitted over WiFi to radio signals and argued that because the information gathered from unencrypted WiFi was “readily available to the public,” it is not covered by the law. The Supreme Court did not comment, while leaving in place the lower court decision rejecting Google’s arguments and holding that data from unencrypted WiFi is private and not exempt under the law.