A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Observing Mauna Kea’s Conflict

Written by: Aaron Frumkin

Edited by: Anton Ziajka

Believing the machinery desecrates their sacred summit and the scarce natural resources it shelters, native Hawaiians have opposed telescope development on Mauna Kea. While it seems that their beleaguered resistance to telescope development will fail yet again with the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), this Note attempts to articulate their best arguments in hopes of properly framing the social costs associated with the great scientific and technological gains that TMT will surely provide.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News In Brief

By Cristina Carapezza

Rosen Wins TV Headrest Patent Suit

Federal Circuit Allows for Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement for Disclaimed Patent

Federal Circuit Prohibits Third Party Challenges to Patent Application Revivals Under the APA

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Government Agents Indicted for Wire Fraud and Money Laundering in Silk Road Investigation

By Sheri Pan – Edited by Jens Frankenreiter

Two former Drug Enforcement Administration agents have been charged for wire fraud and money laundering in connection with an investigation of Silk Road, a digital black market that allowed people to anonymously buy drugs and other illicit goods using Bitcoin, a digital currency. The two agents were members of the Baltimore Silk Road Task Force and allegedly used their official capacities and resources to steal Bitcoins for their personal gain.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Mississippi Attorney General’s investigation of Google temporarily halted by federal court

By Lan Du – Edited by Katherine Kwong

On March 2, 2015, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood’s investigation of Google was halted by a federal court granting Google’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate issued the opinion. Judge Wingate found a substantial likelihood that Hood’s investigation violated Google’s First Amendment rights by content regulation of speech and placing limits of public access to information.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Ken Winterbottom

J.P. Morgan Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Court Agrees with USPTO: Settlement Agreements Are Not Grounds for Dismissing Patent Validity Challenges

Attorney Misconduct-Based Fee-Shifting Request Revived in Light of Recent Supreme Court Decision

Read More...

By Michael Shammas — Edited by Yixuan Long

Amendments to the Intellectual Property Law (B.O.E. 1996) and the Code of Civil Procedure (L.E. Civ. 2000) (Spain).

GOOGLE_APTHDVR_1268416fOn November 4, 2014, Spain amended its Intellectual Property Law and Code of Civil Procedure. The new text includes a provision levying fees on aggregators, like Google News, that collect snippets of other webpages. This practice is often labeled a “Google tax” because of the disproportionate impact such laws have on the search giant. In addition, the Spanish law allows sanctions of up to $758,000 for websites that link to copyright infringing content. Spain is at least the third European government fining search aggregators to support their traditional print publishing industries, following Germany and Belgium. Germany stopped its “Google tax” earlier this year. Belgium gave up in 2011(more…)

Posted On Nov - 18 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Sabreena Khalid

Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 2013-1459 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 6, 2014).

Slip Opinion.

radio-wireless-tower-clip-art_resizedOn November 6th, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC. Plaintiffs Azure Networks, LLC (Azure) and Tri-County Excelsior Foundation (Tri-County) sued CSR PLC and its co-defendants for alleged infringement of Tri-County’s patent – U.S. Patent No. 7,756,129 (“the ’129 patent”) – describing a network for wireless communications between a central “hub” and several devices in close proximity. Slip op. at 3. The appeal involved two major issues.

The first issue was with regard to standing to sue; the defendants had successfully moved to dismiss Tri-County for lack of standing in the district court, arguing that Tri-County had effectively assigned Azure the patent in suit. The Federal Circuit decided the issue de novo, and upheld the dismissal.

The issue of standing turned on the assignment and licensing of the patent: The ’129 patent was acquired by Azure, a Texas limited liability company. Azure partnered with Tri-County, a Texas non-profit organization, to join in patent enforcement activities. Azure donated the ’129 patent to Tri-County in 2010; a few weeks later, Tri-County and Azure entered into a licensing agreement which granted Azure the exclusive, worldwide, transferrable right to practice the ’129 patent, as well as the “full right to enforce or and/or sublicense” the ’129 patent” and various other rights. Id. At 6. Azure’s enforcement rights included the right to reach settlements without Tri-County’s consent. Id. At 7. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 18 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Viviana Ruiz

Russia’s Intellectual Property Court affirms denial of Ford’s trademark application

Ford Motor Company’s (“FMC”) application to protect its company name and blue oval logo was rejected by Russia’s IP Office and affirmed by Russia’s Intellectual Property Court. Even though “FORD” was ranked as the 44th most valuable global brand last year by Forbes Magazine, the company failed to comply with Russia’s procedural requirements to obtain the requested protection. FMC failed to provide evidence of the company’s extensive use of the logo in Russia. FMC tried to prove extensive use through documentation of its joint venture with Russia’s car maker Sollers; however, since the documentation was provided by Ford Sollers Limited, it could not serve as evidence for FMC’s extensive use of its marks in Russia. The IP Office also held that the evidence provided did not show “consistent” use of the mark to qualify for well-known trademark protection. While this rejection may seem like a political move by Russia to challenge the enforcement of American company’s intellectual property rights, it may very well be true that FMC simply failed to comply with the requirements established by Russia’s IP Office. Nonetheless, FMC can reapply to obtain the well-known status of its marks.

Contrary to its advertising efforts, Red Bull does not give you wings

Red Bull GmbH (“Red Bull”) agreed to pay $13 million dollars to settle two class action law suits  Benjamin Careathers v. Red Bull North America Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-00369, and David Wolf et al. v. Red Bull GmbH, Case No. 1:13-cv-08008, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Benjamin Careathers, the plaintiff in one of the suits, argued that he did not grow wings and that his mental and physical development was not enhanced even after ten years of drinking Red Bull. $6.5 million dollars from the settlement will go into a fund that will be paid out to consumers who have been drinking Red Bull since 2002. Consumers do not need to prove purchase in order to get a $10 cash refund or get, in the alternative, $15 worth of Red Bull products. But since over 2 million people have requested for a refund, it is likely that consumers will receive much less than $10. A hearing has been schedule for May 1, 2015 to decide whether the settlement will be approved by Court. Consumers will receive their refund or products within 150 days of the settlement’s approval. Red Bull authorities have expressed that they reached a settlement in order to avoid further litigation, denying claims of liability.

Federal Court rules that food flavors are not trademarkable

In New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal, 3:13-CV-335 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2014), Federal Court ruled that “food flavors” are not trademarkable given their functional purpose. Russo’s New York Pizzeria sued Gina’s Italian Kitchen for taste infringement, claiming trademark rights in the taste of their food. The court ruled that it is not possible to grant trademark protection to food flavors due to the “functionality” of flavors.

Posted On Nov - 17 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Ken Winterbottom – Edited by Yixuan Long

Virginia v. Baust, No. CR14-1439 (Va. Cir. Oct. 28, 2014) Slip Opinion hosted by Scribd.

smartphone-fingerprintA Virginia state trial court held that a suspect “cannot be compelled [by the police] to produce his passcode to access his smartphone but he can be compelled to produce his fingerprint to do the same.” Id. at 4. The analysis turned on whether a passcode or a fingerprint is “testimonial communication.” Id. at 2.

Judge Frucci ruled that phone passwords were entitled to protection under the Fifth Amendment’s promise that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Id. He stressed that the password existed only in the defendant’s mind, and thus compelling the defendant to provide a passcode constituted a testimonial communication. The Fifth Amendment protects against such compulsion.

On the other hand, Judge Frucci concluded that smartphone fingerprint protection did not qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege. He noted that producing a fingerprint did not require the communication of knowledge, but was rather analogous to being ordered to produce a DNA sample or a key, which is constitutionally permissible. Judge Frucci also cited a 1967 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967), for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment “offers no protection against compulsion to submit to fingerprinting.” Baust, No. CR14-1439, at 3 (Va. Cir. Oct. 28, 2014).

Although some commentators were unsurprised by the decision, others worried about its privacy implications. The Virginian-Pilot and The Hill provide further commentary. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 12 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By: Yunnan Jiang

Federal Circuit denies appeal in Baraclude patent case

On October 20, the Federal Circuit declined to hear an appeal by Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.’s (“BMS”). The denial follows a United States District Court for the District of Delaware decision that held the composition of matter patent covering entecavir, US patent 5,206,244 invalid as obvious, which would allow Israel-based Generics giant Teva Pharmaceutical Industries to launch generic production upon the FDA’s final approval. Entecavir is the active ingredient of Baraclude, which is an antiviral medicine developed by scientists at BMS. Baraclude is approved in the United States for the treatment of hepatitis B in adults who have active virus and liver damage and is the global market leader in oral treatments for hepatitis B, with global sales of over $1 billion in 2013.  The district court decided that the invention of entecavir was obvious at the time of its effective filing date and rejected evidence postdating the invention to establish unexpected results.

Federal Circuit denies fee-shifting sanction in patent infringement action over Pfizer

In AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc, No. 13-1056 (Fed. Cir. October 20, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the United States District Court for the Southern District of California’s decision to grant summary judgment for Pfizer and impose a fee-shifting sanction on AntiCancer as a condition of supplementing their infringement contentions. AntiCancer field a lawsuit against Pfizer in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for breach of a license agreement, which the district court found “woefully insufficient”, “vague”. However, on appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected such evidence as basis for bad faith and held that the district court exceeded their discretionary authority in imposing such fee-shifting sanction.

Federal Circuit rejects patent infringement for products sold oversees

In Halo Electronics, Inc., v. Pulse Electronics Inc., No. 13-1472 (Fed. Cir. October 22, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada’s decision finding no direct infringement of the Halo patents for products Pulse manufactured, shipped, and delivered outside the U.S. The Federal Circuit further affirmed district court’s decision finding direct infringement of the Halo patents for pulse products delivered in the United States and inducement for products Pulse delivered outside the United States but were imported into the United States by others. In this decision, the Federal Circuit court rejected Halo’s argument that domestic sale reduction resulted from Halo’s oversee sale and sales negotiations conducted within the United States for sales oversees constituted evidence for patent infringement.

 Yunnan Jiang is a 1L at Harvard Law School.

Posted On Nov - 12 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Photo By: Jeff Ruane - CC BY 2.0

Observing Mauna Kea'

Written by: Aaron Frumkin Edited by: Anton Ziajka I.     Introduction Perched quietly atop ...

Unknown

Federal Circuit Flas

By Cristina Carapezza Rosen Wins TV Headrest Patent Suit The Federal Circuit ...

Unknown

Government Agents In

By Sheri Pan - Edited by Jens Frankenreiter United States v. ...

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Mississippi Attorney

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="150"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...

Unknown

Federal Circuit Flas

By Ken Winterbottom J.P. Morgan Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction In ...