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

USPTO’s post-Alice guidance on patenting claims involving abstract ideas.
By Max Kwon – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

In response to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the USPTO issued a memorandum stating that it will now require that all claims involving abstract ideas for subject matter eligibility be analyzed under the framework outlined in  Mayo Collaborative Services. Although this approach adopts a single analysis, it remains to be seen whether the test will provide enough guidance to both patentees and courts for determining what qualifies as a patentable claim involving an abstract idea.

Read More...

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

Supreme Court: Police Officers Need a Warrant to Search an Arrestee’s Cell Phone
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court decided that police officers “must generally secure a warrant before conducting . . . a search of the information on a cell phone” seized from an individual who has been arrested. Slip op. at 10. Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Roberts found that an officer’s search of a cell phone “implicate[s] privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of . . . physical items.” Id. at 17.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief 

By Amanda Liverzani

Non-Infringement Decision on Hospital Bed Patents Reversed for Erroneous Claim Construction

Patents for Eyelash Growth Treatment Invalidated Based on Obviousness

Constitutionality of “First-Inventor-to-File” Regime Still Undecided

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Anne Woodworth

Federal Circuit finds No Standing in Case Challenging First-to-File Patent Regime

Argentina becomes the First Latin American Country to Block The Pirate Bay

Supreme Court Declines to Hear Google Appeal in Street View Case

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief 

By Max Kwon

Nonprofit advocacy group fails to show “injury in fact”

Court upholds duty to disclose mediator’s personal relationship with defendant

Claim dismissed as indefinite for resting on patent lacking specfic algorithm

Read More...

Federal Circuit Rules Against PTO’s Interpretation of Patent Term Adjustments
By Gary Pong – Edited by Dmitriy Tishyevich

Wyeth and Elan Pharma Int’l Ltd. v. Kappos, No. 2009-1120 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2010).
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the District of Columbia, which had granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, and held that they were “entitled to extended patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) due to the Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO’s”) delay in prosecuting their patent applications.”

In promulgating 37 C.F.R. § 1.703(f), the PTO had interpreted § 154(b) as limiting the length of patent term adjustments to the greater of the statutory delay periods, without the possibility of ever combining the two.  The Federal Circuit concluded that this reading was “contrary to the plain language of the statute,” and declined to afford Chevron deference to the agency’s interpretation, holding that the PTO “does not have authority to issue substantive rules, only procedural regulations regarding the conduct of proceedings before the agency.”

Patent Docs provides an overview of the case.  In another article, Patent Docs also provides insight into the PTO’s future course of action.  Patent Prospector features a thorough analysis of the judicial opinion. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 14 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

The Digest is celebrating our two-year anniversary! Since January 2007 we have grown from a dedicated group of five to a staff of more than twenty-five; this past year we’ve worked to bring our readers a greater quantity and variety of content, including the reintroduction of Flash Digest and Digest Comments. We hope to continue to be a valuable source of law and technology news.

We sincerely hope you’ve enjoyed our coverage this year  - Stay Tuned!

The Digest Staff

Posted On Jan - 10 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST
By Dr.Jur. Eric Engle LLM[i]
Editorial Policy

An internet fraudster, a repeat offender, has recently been charged[ii] with “fraud and related activity in connection with computers[iii] in connection with a financial crime – fraudulent currency trading through phishing.[iv] The defendant obtained the passwords to another person’s internet account and then used that person’s account to trade foreign currency. Interestingly, the indictment[v] uniquely charges the fraudster with a computer crime. The fact pattern, however, raises the interesting question of whether the defendant could have been charged under the Securities and Exchange Acts of 1933[vi] and/or 1934[vii].

The threshold question is whether trading in foreign currency is trading in “a security” and, if so, under what circumstances. The Securities and Exchange Acts define “security” broadly.[viii] Though cash itself is not a security,[ix] Ponzi schemes have been found to be a “security”[x] in the context of currency trading. Furthermore, foreign currency options are a security.[xi] The SEC has charged currency fraud under Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.[xii] Is there a theory which can bring currency trading into the Securities and Exchange Acts? (more…)

Posted On Jan - 7 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Kassity Liu JD ’12
Edited by Joey Seiler

Editorial Policy

On October 6, 2009, Eolas Technologies Inc., a research and development company specializing in web solutions, filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against 23 prominent companies in the software and Internet industry. Eolas claims that these companies are infringing two of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 (’906 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 (’985 Patent). These two patents cover technology that enables websites to act as platforms for fully integrated embedded applications. The ’906 Patent was granted in November 1998. It defines a system that would allow Internet users to access and execute an embedded program. The ’985 Patent, which was granted on the same day that the company filed its present lawsuit, extends the reach of the older patent to AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) applications.

The present suit is not Eolas’ first. In a previous patent infringement suit, Eolas targeted Microsoft, claiming that the company had infringed its ‘906 Patent. Eolas alleged that its invention, which was first demonstrated at a SIGWEB meeting in 1994, was the “first instance where interactive applications were embedded in Webpages.”[1] The district court sided with Eolas, and the jury awarded Eolas $521 million in damages.[2] Microsoft appealed this decision, but after unsuccessful attempts at moving the case to the Supreme Court and invalidating the patent, the software giant chose to settle with Eolas. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 3 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Dr. Jur. Eric Engle, LLM[i]
Edited by Gary Pong
Editorial Policy

New technologies have made types of searches possible which could never have been envisioned when the Fourth Amendment was proposed to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure. With remote listening, infrared imaging, and, now, wireless technologies, it is possible to detect movements of people within buildings with no discernible physical impact on the surveilled person’s life.[ii] Are remote searches reasonable? Do they require a warrant?[iii] In my opinion, courts should treat these sorts of remote detection techniques (“surveillance”) as searches subject to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly guaranties that:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Fourth Amendment was incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to apply directly to the states, even though many protections against search and seizure at state common law were more extensive than the Fourth Amendment.[iv] The general rule is that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unwarranted searches does not apply where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.[v] That leads to the question of when a person has reason to believe that he or she is “in private” as opposed to “in public”. This will depend both on the facts of the case and on social reality.[vi] For example, different cultures within the United States have different senses of what is “public” and what is “private”, and those senses are constantly evolving.[vii] However, one bright line stands out: searches of homes without warrants are presumptively unreasonable because “[a]t the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” [viii] (more…)

Posted On Dec - 29 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Idea

USPTO’s post-Alice

USPTO’s post-Alice guidance on patenting claims involving abstract ideas. By Max ...

Search Warrant

Supreme Court: Polic

Supreme Court: Police Officers Need a Warrant to Search an ...

Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Amanda Liverzani Non-Infringement Decision on Hospital Bed Patents Reversed for ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Anne Woodworth Federal Circuit finds No Standing in Case Challenging ...

Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Max Kwon Nonprofit advocacy group fails to show "injury in ...