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...

By Corey Omer

Icon-newsApple v. Samsung — Round 2

Last week in San Jose, California, lawyers for Apple and Samsung squared off as the second major trial between the two mobile technology giants took off. Apple seeks roughly $2 billion in damages — $40 per allegedly infringing Samsung device sold in the United States — for violation of five of its mobile software patents. Samsung claims that Apple violated two of its own patents. The last time Apple and Samsung sparred over patents, Apple secured a decisive victory, and Samsung was ordered to pay $930 million in damages. The damages order can be found here.

Brian X. Chen of the New York Times notes that many of the patented features at issue have become “mainstays on mobile devices”: unified search, slide-to-unlock, remote video transmission, and data tapping among others.

Professor Mark P. McKenna of Notre Dame has also highlighted that “Google’s been lurking in the background of all these cases because of the Android system. . . . Several people have described the initial battle between Samsung and Apple as really one between Apple and Google.” Indeed, some of the contested features were put on the Samsung devices by Google through its Android operating system, rather than by Samsung itself. Google’s Android operating system—the main competitor to Apple’s iOS—runs on more than a billion devices worldwide, and an Apple victory against Samsung could require Google to make changes to several important Android features.

Block v. eBay — Misinterpreting Terms of Service

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a plaintiff’s stretched reading of eBay’s user agreement in Block v. Ebay, Inc., No. 12-16527 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2014). The court unanimously affirmed the district court’s ruling that neither of the contested provisions constitutes a promise by eBay.

The plaintiff attacked eBay’s “Automatic Bidding System”—which incrementally increases a user’s bid in response to other users’ bids until the user’s specified maximum bid is reached—as a violation of two user agreement terms. Block, slip op. at 3. First, eBay’s User Agreement states that eBay is “not involved in the actual transaction between buyers and sellers.” Id. at 5. Second, the agreement provides that “[n]o agency . . . relationship is intended or created by this Agreement.” Id. at 4.

Eric Goldman suggests that “[w]hile this case reached a good result, it offers a good cautionary tale for contract drafters–especially lawyers drafting contracts for successful online businesses whose bank accounts are like honeypots to plaintiffs’ lawyers with an insatiable appetite for someone else’s cash.”

GrubHub Goes Public

Late last Thursday, online food ordering company GrubHub (owner of food-delivery services Seamless.com and Menupages.com; NYSE: GRUB) priced its initial public offering of 7.4 million shares at $26 per share. On Friday, the shares soared, finishing the day with a 31% gain and leaving the company valued at $2.7 billion.

With 3.4 million “Active Diners” and over 28,000 affiliated restaurants paying GrubHub a commission each time a customer places an order through one of its websites, GrubHub appears to be booming. Yet not everyone is confident that GrubHub’s operating and financial conditions justify its present market valuation. Forbes’ Peter Cohan, for instance, suggests resisting “tak[ing] a bite of GrubHub’s IPO.”

Tweet Away, Turkey

Last Wednesday, Turkey’s Constitutional Court ruled that the country’s ban on Twitter violated the right to free expression, and it demanded that citizens’ access to the website be restored. Prime Minister Erdogan’s office responded on Thursday by lifting the ban, which, Gul Tuysuz and Laura Smith-Spark of CNN report “began hours after Erdogan threatened to ‘eradicate’ Twitter at a campaign rally on March 20, blaming social media for fueling anti-government rhetoric.”

On Friday, a court in Ankara also lifted a total ban on YouTube, which was imposed less than a week after the Twitter ban. The court nevertheless decided to continue to block 15 specific YouTube links. It remains unclear when access to the video streaming website will in fact be restored.

Posted On Apr - 7 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Ken Winterbottom – Edited by Husam El-Qoulaq

Photo By: DouglasCC BY 2.0

The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies passed a bill last week enshrining citizens’ rights to privacy and freedom of expression online. The groundbreaking bill, known as the Marco Civil da Internet, has been called an “Internet Bill of Rights.” The Brazilian Senate will vote on the proposed legislation this month, according to Index on Censorship.

The bill as passed represents a victory for tech juggernauts Google and Facebook, who successfully lobbied for dropping the provision that would have required them to store data collected from Brazilian citizens on servers within Brazilian territory. President Dilma Rousseff, who had been committed to the local storage requirement in the wake of the Edward Snowden NSA leaks, dropped the provision to secure passage of the rest of the bill, Bloomberg reports. Foreign companies storing and managing data on Brazilian citizens are still required to “respect Brazilian law,” but commentators have noted that this provision may be unenforceable in practice for jurisdictional reasons. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 6 - 2014 6 Comments READ FULL POST

By Michelle Goldring – Edited by Sheri Pan

Photo By: photosteve101CC BY 2.0

Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 9931 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2013)
Slip Opinion hosted by Justia.com

EMI was awarded $41 million last week following a jury trial that found Michael Robertson, the CEO of MP3tunes, a now defunct cloud music storage service, guilty of copyright infringement. The verdict followed a 2013 order issued by the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York that altered several previous rulings in an earlier order issued by the same court in October 2011. Capitol Records, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC, No. 07 Civ. 9931 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2011) at *1, Slip Opinion hosted by beckermanlegal.com. The court vacated summary judgment rulings on claims by plaintiff Capitol Records, since acquired by EMI, against MP3tunes for contributory infringement liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and red-flag knowledge of infringement Id. at *3–4. The court vacated the 2011 rulings after the Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2d. Cir. 2012) decision by the Second Circuit, which overturned part of an earlier decision central to the 2011 order. The court also denied an inducement cause of action for lack of evidence, as well as a motion for reconsideration on whether MP3Tunes infringed on EMI-owned cover art by displaying it on the service. Capitol Records at *5–6.

Ars Technica provides an overview of the order that preceded the damages trial. Reuters provides a brief overview of the order, as well as the history and arguments of the underlying case. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 5 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Paul Klein – Edited by Geng Chen

Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge, No. 2013-1515 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 20, 2014)
Slip Opinion

On March 20, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a ruling by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that had found Leif J. Hauge in contempt of a court order enforcing a previous settlement agreement (the “2001 Order”) and that had enjoined him from manufacturing and selling any pressure exchangers in competition with his former employer, Energy Recovery, Inc. (“ERI”). See Energy Recovery, Inc., slip op. at 2, 4.

The Federal Circuit held that “Mr. Hauge did not violate any provision of the 2001 Order . . . .” Id. at 12. Judge Wallach, writing for the panel, found that “[t]he Agreement only required Mr. Hauge to transfer ownership of the pre-Agreement pressure exchanger intellectual property . . . .” Id. at 8. Even if Hague was using his former employer’s manufacturing processes and the knowledge of its employees to create a pressure exchanger in a manner that infringed ERI’s patents or violated trade secrecy laws, these issues were not before the court. See id. at 9, 11. As “[n]othing in the 2001 Order expressly preclude[d] Mr. Hauge from using any manufacturing process,” the court did not find that Hague’s actions constituted a failure to assign “all other intellectual property and other rights relating to pressure exchanger technology predating [the] Order” to ERI. Id. at 8.

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt provides an overview of the case and notes that “[w]hat is most interesting in the case is the fact that the [Federal] Circuit didn’t examine more closely the relationship between ‘all other intellectual property and other rights’ and the trade secrets involved in ERI’s manufacturing processes.” PatentlyO agrees with the Federal Circuit’s treatment of intellectual property as “the rights over that technology,” rather than “the technology itself,” and warns that the latter definition would “lead[] to chaos, confusion, and erroneous views about the law[].” (more…)

Posted On Apr - 3 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Kim Meyer – Edited by Andrew Spore

Photo By: Rob BoudonCC BY 2.0

Apple is in talks with Comcast to enter an agreement that would allow Apple’s set-top television streaming boxes to bypass congestion on the Internet, the Wall Street Journal reports. The agreement, which is presently only in its early stages, would grant Apple “special treatment on Comcast’s cables” and has raised net neutrality concerns.

Apple has been developing the next generation of its set-top box with an eye toward integrating gaming capabilities, a router, and a “TV tuner component” that will allow users to control their existing cable boxes and TV stations through their Apple TV boxes, The Verge reported in January. The boxes would effectively replace the traditional cable set-top box, allowing users to stream live and on-demand programming.

The potential agreement between Apple and Comcast would separate traffic to and from Apple’s set-top boxes from public Internet traffic on the “last mile” — those cables that connect to customers’ homes. This would allow users to avoid the “clogging” problem “that occurs when too many users in the same area try to access too much bandwidth at the same time,” the Wall Street Journal explains. The Verge reports that Apple was engaged in similar talks with Time Warner Cable before Time Warner agreed to merge with Comcast. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 2 - 2014 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. ...