A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso

IMDb is challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1687 (“AB 1687”), a California law requiring IMDb to remove ages from its website upon request from paid subscribers, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.



Facebook Blocks British Insurance Company from Basing Premiums on Posts and Likes

By Javier Careaga– Edited by Mila Owen

Admiral Insurance has created an initiative called firstcarquote, which analyzes Facebook activity of first-time car owners. The firstcarquote algorithm determines risk based on personality traits and habits that are linked to safe driving. Firstcarquote was recalled two hours before its official launch and then was launched with reduced functionality after Facebook denied authorization, stating that the initiative breaches Facebook’s platform policy.



Airbnb challenges New York law regulating short-term rentals

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari

Airbnb filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking to “enjoin and declare unlawful the enforcement against Airbnb” of the recent law that prohibits  the advertising of short-term rentals on Airbnb and other similar websites.  Airbnb argued that the new law violated its rights to free speech and due process, and that it was inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from a range of liabilities.



Medtronic v. Bosch post-Cuozzo: PTAB continues to have the final say on inter partes review

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) reaffirmed its earlier order, dismissing Medtronic’s appeal against a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB had dismissed Medtronic’s petition for inter partes review of Bosch’s patents, since Medtronic had failed to disclose all real parties in interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2).




California DMV Discuss Rules on Autonomous Vehicles

DOJ Release Guidelines on CFAA Prosecutions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule in Favor of State Provisions Requiring Disclosure of Online Identities of Sex Offenders

Research Shows Concerns for Crucial Infrastructure Information Leaks


Iphone4 and NexusSBy Filippo Raso – Edited by Frederick Ding

In the Matter of the Search of an Apple iPhone Seized During the Execution of a Search Warrant on a Black Lexus IS300, California License Plate 35KGD203, No. ED 15-0451M (C.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2016) Order hosted by DocumentCloud.

Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym of the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Apple to assist federal investigators in accessing data stored on the iPhone that belonged to the San Bernardino gunman who killed 14 people.

In response to an ex parte motion for assistance from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the magistrate judge ordered Apple to provide the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) with “reasonable technical assistance” to accomplish three functions aimed at circumventing Apple’s security measures. The magistrate judge accepted the DOJ’s explanation in granting the order. Apple moved to vacate the order. Following Apple’s motion, the DOJ moved to compel Apple’s cooperation, and Apple filed an appeal of the order before a district court judge. At the time of writing, the DOJ delayed the next hearing since it may have obtained an alternative method to circumvent the iPhone’s security without Apple’s assistance.

After the December 2015 massacre in San Bernardino, California, the FBI executed a legal search warrant and discovered an iPhone used by the terrorist. It is uncontested that the search warrant authorizes the FBI to access the contents of the iPhone. However, investigators have been unable to circumvent Apple’s anti–brute-force security features, which include multi-layered encryption, an auto-erase function after ten incorrect passcode attempts, artificial delays between attempts, and disallowing electronic passcode submissions.


Posted On Mar - 29 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST

3642973520_1451bc1137_bBy Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

SB 180, SB 182

Text and history of SB 180

Text and history of SB 182

On February 24, 2016, the Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, signed Senate Bill 180, Trade Secrets, and Senate Bill 182, Public Records and Meetings/Trade Secrets, into Florida law. This legislation includes financial information under the umbrella of protected trade secrets.  The bills exempt financial information from Florida’s sunshine laws, which mandate public access to both government records and minutes of meetings. This legislation has been a longtime goal of P3s, private companies building public projects in exchange for the ability to collect revenue from them for a period of time. The bill was originally introduced by Republican Senator Garrett Richter. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 28 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Icon-newsBy Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Yunnan Jiang

Patent Agent Privilege

In Re: Queen’s University at Kingston, PARTEQ Research and Development Innovations (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016)

Queen’s University and its partner in commercializing university-developed IP, PARTEQ R&D, are involved in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against Samsung Electronics. The district court had ordered Queen’s University to produce all communications with its non-attorney patent agents. Queen’s University sought a writ of mandamus directing the district court to withdraw its order on the ground that the communication between a client and non-attorney patent agents is privileged.

Looking at precedent and relying heavily on the logic about the status of patent agents in the legal system found in Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that “the unique roles of patent agents, the congressional recognition of their authority to act, the Supreme Court’s characterization of their activities as the practice of law, and the current realities of patent litigation counsel in favor of recognizing an independent patent-agent privilege.” The scope of the privilege is not unlimited, as the Court held that only communications that are in furtherance of the tasks of a patent agent outlined in 37 C.F.R. § 11.5(b)(1) are covered, but tasks incidental to those goals, such as assessing the validity of a competitor’s patent in contemplation of litigation or sale are not privileged.

For an interesting discussion of the implications and limits of this ruling (and perhaps advice on IPRs not covered), Dennis Crouch’s article on this ruling and the commentary provides good reading. Paul Ackerman over at National Law Review also provides an interesting look at the limits of the ruling.


Posted On Mar - 28 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Frederick Ding — Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Supreme Court grants certiorari to Samsung on design patent damages

In December 2015, Samsung paid $548 million to Apple after a jury in 2012 found Samsung to be infringing Apple’s utility and design patents. Although this amount had been reduced from the billion-dollar jury award, Samsung contested the calculation of damages using the infringing devices’ total profits. Samsung petitioned the Supreme Court, presenting two questions, including: “Where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, should an award of infringer’s profits be limited to those profits attributable to the component?” On Monday, March 21, 2016, the Supreme Court granted the petition for October Term 2016, limited to this question. Tech companies are closely monitoring the case, which involves nineteenth-century provisions of the Patent Act that they contend did not anticipate complex “multicomponent” products.

Justice Department announces indictments of seven Iranians for state-sponsored cyberattacks

A federal grand jury has indicted seven Iranians alleged to be “experienced hackers … working on behalf of the Iranian government … to conduct a series of cyberattacks against civilian targets in the United States,” according to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. They are accused of conspiracy to commit computer hacking and unauthorized access to a protected computer, in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, in connection with distributed denial-of-service attacks on several U.S. banks and an apparently successful intrusion into a New York dam’s control systems. Significantly, the Washington Post reports that this is the first time the United States government has charged foreign agents, acting abroad, with hacking civilian targets in the United States.

Civil liberties group warns of NYC’s newest surveillance network: free public Wi-Fi

New York City deployed the first public Wi-Fi kiosks in Manhattan in January 2016, as part of LinkNYC, an initiative to replace phone booths in the city with over 7500 advertising-supported kiosks providing free Internet service. But because the service requires an email address, and acceptance of terms and a Privacy Policy authorizing the collection, retention, and disclosure to government authorities of personally identifiable information transmitted over the service, the New York Civil Liberties Union has recently raised concerns that LinkNYC will serve as a new surveillance vehicle enabling law enforcement to collect information on citizens. The General Manager of LinkNYC issued a statement in response this week, noting that they would share data with law enforcement only upon “subpoena or similar lawful request.” This language is reminiscent of the terms of use and privacy policies of other telecommunications companies, which similarly give leeway to respond to court orders, discovery requests, and even agency request letters, including those that have not received judicial approval.

Posted On Mar - 28 - 2016 1 Comment READ FULL POST

Queen's UniversityBy Kevin Crenny – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, No. 2015-145 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016), opinion available here.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by writ of mandamus, reversed an order by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to compel production of documents containing communications between plaintiff Queen’s University and its non-attorney patent agents.

The Federal Circuit held that communications “relating to ‘obtaining legal advice on patentability and legal services in preparing a patent application’ will be kept privileged,” even if such communications are between a client and a non-attorney patent agent. In doing so, the court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), hosted by justia.com, which had established that patent agents did practice law, albeit to a limited extent. The Circuit reasoned that protecting legal communications, even if neither party is an attorney, would serve Congress’ intent in establishing patent agents as an alternative to attorneys in this limited context. In so holding, the court established for the first time a patent-agent privilege, overcoming the general presumption against finding new forms of privilege.


Posted On Mar - 22 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
California Flag

IMDb Challenges Cali

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso IMDb.com, Inc. v. ...

Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...


Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...


Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...


Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...