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

District Court Grants Summary Judgment to YouTube in Viacom v. YouTube (Again)

Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc.
By Pio Szamel – Edited by Laura Fishwick

On April 18, 2013 the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York once again granted summary judgment for YouTube in Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., on remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Louis L. Stanton held that YouTube did not have any actual knowledge of any specific infringements of the Viacom content in suit, nor was it willfully blind to any such specific infringements.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Finds Bayer’s Yaz Birth Control Patent Invalid for Obviousness

Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc.
By Erica Larson – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Nevada District Court, which ruled that claims 13 and 15 of Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bayer Schering Pharma AG (“Bayer”) U.S. Patent RE37,564 were not invalid for obviousness. The patent claimed a combination of synthetic hormones and dosing regimens used by Bayer in the Yaz birth control pill.

Read More...

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

The Way the Cookie Crumbles: “Metaphorical” Arguments Before The Supreme Court on the Patentability of Genes

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
By Alex Shank – Edited by David LeRay

On Monday, April 15, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to determine the validity of a patent encompassing the use of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these genes correlate strongly with the development of breast and ovarian cancers. As the patent owner, Myriad Genetics, Inc. (“Myriad”) possesses and exercises the exclusive right to sell diagnostic testing kits based on these genes.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Charlie Stiernberg

Digital Public Library of America Goes Live, Sans Fanfare

ITC Rules Apple iPhone did not Violate Motorola Patents

Parties Race to Register “Boston Strong” Trademark with USPTO

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ron Gonski

House Passes CISPA

Federal Circuit Renews K-Tech Communications Lawsuit Against DirecTV

Government Squashes Dozens of Patents a Year for National Security Reasons

Read More...

Supreme Court Rules for Navy in Use of Sonar in Training Exercises
By Jared Frisch – Edited by Dmitriy Tishyevich
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States, November 12, 2008, No. 07-1239
Slip Opinion

The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and vacated in part a preliminary injunction that had restricted sonar training operations by the US Navy. The training operations were alleged to damage marine life in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (“NEPA”). The Court applied an equitable balancing test, determining that the likelihood of irreparable injury to the environment was outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in “effective, realistic training of its sailors.”

Mainstream reporting on the Supreme Court decision can be found at New York Times and the Associated Press.  Further commentary following the case is available at Slashdot and ScotusBlog.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 17 - 2008 2 Comments READ FULL POST

Harry Potter Lexicon Defendant Files Notice of Appeal
Notice of Appeal (hosted by Justia)

On November 7, 2008, defendant RDR Books filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit from the September 9, 2008 decision of the S.D.N.Y., which permanently enjoined its publication of the Harry Potter Lexicon book and awarded plaintiffs Warner Brothers and J.K. Rowling statutory damages of $6,750.

Previously: Harry Potter Lexicon Found to Infringe J.K. Rowling’s Copyright

Posted On Nov - 11 - 2008 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Court Declares “Grand Theft” Crime Free
By Briahna Gray – Edited by Miriam Weiler

E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc., v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., November 5 2008, No. 06-56237
Slip Opinion

On November 5, 2008 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Central California District Court summary judgment ruling to dismiss the case brought by the operators of a Los Angeles strip club (“E.S.S.”) against Rock Star Videos (“Rockstar”), the manufacturer of the Grand Theft Auto video games, for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, California Business and Professions Code § 14320 and § 17200 and California common law.

E.E.S. had argued that Rockstar’s imitation of the strip club’s logo within the virtual world of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas had no artistic relevance and would mislead consumers, confusing them as to whether EES had endorsed or associated itself with the digital rendition. In resolving this claim, the court applied a balancing test to weigh Trademark interests against First Amendment rights, stating that the Lanham Act applies to artistic works “only where the public interest in avoiding consumer confusion outweighs the public interest in free expression” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989) (emphasis in the original).

The ruling affirming summary judgment in favor of the popular game has drawn attention from a number of commentators. The authors at Techdirt.com applaud the decision. Coverage is also offered by Gamastura.com, Techdirt.com and Filewrapper.com summarize the case. RealDealDocs.com lists other legal challenges Grand Theft Auto has faced in the past six years.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2008 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Australia Poised to Begin Internet Filtering Program Unprecedented in Scope for Modern Democracy
By Debbie Rosenbaum
Editorial Policy 

If the presumption that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions is true, then there is cause for great alarm as one of our nation’s closest democratic allies moves to drastically curtail this foundational freedom within its boarders. The Australian government will likely enact legislation that will make sweeping, compulsory Internet censorship a startling reality for all Australian citizens. Spearheaded by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, and backed by $44.2 million from the government’s $125.8 million Plan for Cyber-Safety budget, the planned filter (part of the NetAlert program) will render Internet access in Australia similar to that in Iran or China.

Australia’s Federal Government announced its ambitious web censorship plan in December 2007. The goal of the program is seemingly well intentioned: to shield children from violent and pornographic sites. (See the Australian government’s “Children Are Sacred” report, which discusses instances of child sexual abuse in the Northern Territories). The Family First Party, a relatively minor party with only one Member of Parliament, originally championed the filter, also known as the “clean feed” policy. The Party’s proposal has earned wider support from both Senator Conroy and the Rudd-Labor Government. Senator Conroy is expected to call for bids from Australian software makers, and reportedly wants to begin live trials by the end of the year.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2008 4 Comments READ FULL POST

The JOLT Digest is proud to introduce Digest Comments! In addition to our regular updates on breaking law and technology news, the Digest will periodically publish longer opinion pieces on especially significant issues. These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics they believe warrant closer examination and study.

While the Digest provides hosting for Digest Comments, the opinions expressed in the comments are those of the Authors alone and do not reflect any position of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, the JOLT Digest, or the Harvard Law School.

– The Digest Staff Editors

 

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2008 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Hacked By Over-X

District Court Grant

Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. By Pio Szamel - Edited ...

Photo By: Nate Grigg - CC BY 2.0

Federal Circuit Find

Bayer Healthcare Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc. By Erica Larson ...

Photo By: brett jordan - CC BY 2.0

The Way the Cookie C

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. By Alex Shank ...

Flash Digest: News i

By Charlie Stiernberg Digital Public Library of America Goes Live, Sans ...

Flash Digest

Flash Digest: News i

By Ron Gonski House Passes CISPA Last week, the U.S. House of ...