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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Steven Wilfong

Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based on inequitable conduct

ITC’s ruling that uPI violated Consent Order affirmed

Court rules that VeriFone devices did not infringe on payment terminal software patents

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design

French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed

Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement

Read More...

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

Silk Road Founder Loses Argument That the FBI Illegally Hacked Servers to Find Evidence against Him

By Travis West  — Edited by Mengyi Wang

The alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was denied the motion to suppress evidence in his case. Ulbricht argued that the FBI illegally hacked the Silk Road servers to search for evidence to use in search warrants for the server. The judge denied the motion because Ulbricht failed to establish he had any privacy interest in the server.

Read More...

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

Trademark Infringement or First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech?

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys

On October 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, urging  that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”. The brief argues that the use of the names of organizations to comment, critique, and parody, is constitutionally protected by the speaker’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Read More...

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

Twitter goes to court over government restrictions limiting reporting on surveillance requests

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas

Twitter on Oct. 7 sued the government, asking a federal district court to rule that it was allowed to reveal the numbers of surveillance requests it receives in greater detail. Twitter opposes complying with the rules agreed upon by the government and other tech companies in a settlement earlier this year, and argues that the rules violated its rights under the First Amendment.

Read More...

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Separate Written Description and Enablement Requirements for Patents
By Tyler Lacey – Edited by Jad Mills

Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., Appeal 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 22, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”), in a 9-2 en banc decision, affirmed a panel decision holding Ariad’s patent claims invalid for lack of written description. In so holding, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (“§ 112”) contains  two separate requirements: written description and enablement.

The patent, which related to “the regulation of gene expression by the transcription factor NF-κB,” encompassed a genus of substances. In holding the patent invalid for lack of written description, the court agreed that the ”doctrine disadvantages universities to the extent that basic research cannot be patented,” because of the difficulty of providing a written description for a complete invention embodying basic research, but noted that this is the law’s “intention”.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case. Inventive Step argues that § 112 is “not a model of clarity” and that the court errs when it “seems to argue that the statute is not ambiguous and that its interpretation is clear from the language.” Chris Holman, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City who filed an amicus brief arguing against separate requirements, criticized the decision by noting that “any positive policy aspects of [written description] can be better accomplished using the enablement requirement, and that the courts have failed to articulate any coherent standard for compliance with [written description] beyond the requirements of enablement.” Holman believes that the court retained the separate written description requirement because “it has developed into a useful tool for invalidating clearly objectionable patent claims precisely because it lacks any coherent standard.” (more…)

Posted On Mar - 26 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Kassity Liu

Third Circuit Dismisses “Sexting” Charges Against Minor

On March 18, the WSJ Law Blog reported that the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed charges against a teenage girl for distributing sexually explicit images of herself. The court had originally stated that they would address whether the First Amendment protects minors from sending these types of images of themselves through their cells phones, but the court refused to consider this issue in the case. Instead, the three-judge panel concluded that the prosecutor could not charge her for appearing in a sexually explicit photo without evidence that she had helped to distribute it. The court’s ruling appears to protect minors from liability for “sexting,” the act of “sending or posting sexually suggestive text messages and images . . . via cellular telephones or over the internet,” so long as there is “no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo.” The case name is Miller v. Mitchell, No. 09-2144 (3d. Cir. Mar. 17, 2010).

California Appeals Court Holds Threatening Online Speech is not Protected

On March 18, Wired reported that a California appeals court held that hateful and threatening online speech was not protected by the First Amendment. The father of the student who was targeted by the online postings had sued six students and their parents after hearing from the police that the threatening comments posted to his son’s website were protected forms of speech and could not be criminally prosecuted. One of the defendant students claimed that he had made the comments jokingly and did not seriously intend them to be harmful. However, the appellate court refused to accept this defense and instead upheld a lower court’s finding that the defendant had failed to “demonstrate that the posted message is free speech.” The majority judges felt that the defendant’s posting was “a serious expression of intent to inflict bodily harm” both because the posting contained a clear threat and the defendant student spent ample time writing it. The case name is D.C. v. R.R., No. BC332406 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Mar. 15, 2010).

Science Journalist fights libel suit in effort to campaign for British libel law reform

On March 15, the Citizen Media Law Project reported that science journalist Simon Singh has given up his Guardian column to fight a libel lawsuit that the British Chiropractic Association (“BCA”) brought against him for writing an article that denounced some of the BCA’s medical claims. Singh plans on using his case to campaign for British libel law reform, which currently places the entire burden of proving the truth of an allegedly libelous statement on the defendant. The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for two years, has garnered a significant amount of public attention and generated some talks of reform within the British Parliament. Last May, an English court had ruled that Singh would have to prove that the BCA was being “consciously dishonest” when it made the medical claims that Singh had called “bogus” in his article. Singh has appealed this ruling and foresees that his case could “easily continue for another two years.”

Posted On Mar - 22 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jyoti Uppuluri

Public Battle Between Google and China Continues

On March 12, Wired reported that the friction between Google and China over the censorship of search results and issues of cybersecurity is ongoing as Google keeps pushing for greater Internet freedom for users. China’s Minister of Information and Technology, Li Yizhong, told the press “Google has made its case, both publicly and privately,” and explained “[i]f you don’t respect Chinese laws, you are unfriendly and irresponsible, and the consequences will be on you.” Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, stated that he hopes that talks with the Chinese government will yield a result soon.

Netflix Cancels Prize Contest Over Privacy Concerns

On March 12, Ars Technica reported that Netflix has cancelled its second Netflix Prize contest in order settle a lawsuit and alleviate concerns by the Federal Trade Commission. In December, a user sued Netflix, alleging that the data provided by the company to contest participants was insufficiently anonymized. According to Ars Technica, the suit claims that Netflix “violated fair-trade laws and a federal privacy law designed to protect video rental records.” Neil Hunt, Netflix’s chief product officer, stated that company has “reached an understanding with the FTC and ha[s] settled the lawsuit with plaintiffs,” noting that the agreement “involves certain parameters for how [the company] use[s] Netflix data in any future research programs.”

More Freedom for Social Media Services to Operate in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan

On March 10, the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) has announced “key amendments” regarding export controls on social media software. The new rules clarify that the export of certain personal communication services and software over the Internet, including “instant messaging, chat and email, [and] social networking,” is now permitted in Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. Prior to these amendments, OFAC’s regulations had been a source of legal ambiguity for companies such as Google and Microsoft, causing them to block some personal communication services in these nations.

Posted On Mar - 16 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

TiVo Wins Five Year Battle Over Patent Infringement with EchoStar
By Katy Yang – Edited by Kassity Liu

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., No. 2009-1374 (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which had found EchoStar in contempt of a permanent injunction order that was issued by the court in an earlier judgment in which two types of EchoStar receivers were found to infringe on TiVo’s time-shift technology patent. The order had required EchoStar “to stop making, using, offering to sell, and selling the receivers”  and “to disable the DVR functionality in existing receivers, with the exception of select receivers that had already been placed with its subscribers.”

The Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding contempt proceedings for adjudicating the continued infringement of EchoStar’s redesigned receivers, nor did it commit clear error in finding continued infringement by these receivers. It also held that the district court’s injunction was clear enough to provide reasonable notice of the order to disable the DVR function in all infringing receivers, and upheld the provision of the injunction requiring EchoStar to notify the court of additional redesign attempts and to seek approval before executing a design-around.

Bloomberg and the Associated Press provide overviews of the case.  Gordon Patent Cases summarizes some of the legal issues in the decision, and Beta News provides a detailed comparison of the majority and dissenting opinions. (more…)

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

Supreme Court Holds That Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction over Unregistered Copyright Claims
By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Gary Pong

Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, No. 08–103 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2010)
Slip Opinion

In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court overturned a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision which held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to certify either the class or the settlement in a case involving holders of unregistered copyrights. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held in a sua sponte decision that a copyright holder’s failure to comply with § 411(a)‘s registration requirement deprives a federal court of subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his copyright infringement claim. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Sotomayor did not take part in the decision, perhaps because she was a member of the Second Circuit Court that decided not to rehear the case en banc.  The Supreme Court decision revived a possible $18 million settlement between freelance writers, publishers and electronic database owners, involving payment to freelance writers for online use of their work — even when some writers have not registered their copyright.

The New York Times and TechDirt both provide overviews of the decision.  The Legal Information Institute at the Cornell University Law School provides a detailed analysis of the issues underlying this case. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 5 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...