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

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso

IMDb is challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1687 (“AB 1687”), a California law requiring IMDb to remove ages from its website upon request from paid subscribers, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Read More...

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

Facebook Blocks British Insurance Company from Basing Premiums on Posts and Likes

By Javier Careaga– Edited by Mila Owen

Admiral Insurance has created an initiative called firstcarquote, which analyzes Facebook activity of first-time car owners. The firstcarquote algorithm determines risk based on personality traits and habits that are linked to safe driving. Firstcarquote was recalled two hours before its official launch and then was launched with reduced functionality after Facebook denied authorization, stating that the initiative breaches Facebook’s platform policy.

Read More...

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

Airbnb challenges New York law regulating short-term rentals

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari

Airbnb filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking to “enjoin and declare unlawful the enforcement against Airbnb” of the recent law that prohibits  the advertising of short-term rentals on Airbnb and other similar websites.  Airbnb argued that the new law violated its rights to free speech and due process, and that it was inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from a range of liabilities.

Read More...

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

Medtronic v. Bosch post-Cuozzo: PTAB continues to have the final say on inter partes review

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) reaffirmed its earlier order, dismissing Medtronic’s appeal against a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB had dismissed Medtronic’s petition for inter partes review of Bosch’s patents, since Medtronic had failed to disclose all real parties in interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2).

 

Read More...

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

California DMV Discuss Rules on Autonomous Vehicles

DOJ Release Guidelines on CFAA Prosecutions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule in Favor of State Provisions Requiring Disclosure of Online Identities of Sex Offenders

Research Shows Concerns for Crucial Infrastructure Information Leaks

Read More...

Sikhs for Justice LogoBy Ann Kristin Glenster – Edited by Yaping Zhang

Sikhs for Justice Inc.(SFJ) v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov 13, 2015, Case No. 15-CV-02442-LHK), opinion available here.

On November 13, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed the New York-based organization Sikhs for Justice’s (SFJ) case against Facebook for allegedly blocking the group’s page from users in India. The case raised issues concerning the reach of federal anti-discrimination laws, and the role of global online providers as the social internet space increasingly hosts platforms for political speech. Yet, the Court maintained that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunized interactive online providers from liability arising from Title II of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, and in so doing, refused to dwell on the wider principles at stake.

As social media companies operate global sites, questions remain as to the potential extraterritorial reach of U.S. laws. SFJ argued that Facebook’s incorporation in Delaware and its California offices justified bringing a case regarding Indian users to federal court. Facebook asserted that not only did federal law not reach that far, but furthermore that the company did not provide public accommodation under Title II of the CRA.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Colette Ghazarian – Edited by Yunnan Jiang

Evidence of Prior Art Cannot be Excluded for Untimeliness

In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 2015-1215, 2015-1226 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that evidence of prior art must still be considered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in its determination of the validity of the patent even if it is identified after the initial petition stage of an inter partes review. Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for inter partes review against patents held by Verinata Health related to prenatal testing products. Ariosa claimed that the patents were obvious in light of three prior-art references, which were not included in its initial petition. The references in question were contained in a brochure that was attached as an exhibit to an expert declaration. Ariosa claimed that the brochure showed the background knowledge a skilled artisan would have possessed about this particular topic. The Board declined to consider this document because, based on the language in its decision, it was not presented along with the initial petition and was only introduced at Ariosa’s expert’s deposition. The Court held that the Board’s decision not to consider the brochure was in error. It held that evidence of prior art can be considered by the Board even though it was not included in the initial petition for review. Since the Court could not determine whether the error was prejudicial or not, the decision was vacated and remanded to the Board.

Consent Decree Still Enforceable Even if Patent Later Found Invalid

In Delorme Publishing Company, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 2014-1572 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that the invalidity of a patent could not retroactively eliminate the liability and penalty of an infringer of that patent under a consent decree. DeLorne Publishing Company sued the International Trade Commission (ITC) over its decision to enforce a consent decree prohibiting DeLorne from importing “certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof” that infringed on certain patent claims, or gave instructions for users to infringe on the claims. The Court first held that by selling infringing devices containing infringing components with instructions to infringe still violated the consent decree. Next, and more importantly, the Court held that the fact that the patent claims referenced in the consent decree were later found to be invalid did not eliminate DeLorne’s liability and the $6,242,500 civil penalty for its actions while the patent was still valid. In reaching its conclusion, the Court referred to Part 4 of the consent decree, which states “The Consent Order shall not apply to any claim…that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable.” The Court argued that based on the language in the decree, if the invalidity of a patent were to apply to past infringement, then the inevitable expiration of the patent would as well. This would be an absurd interpretation of the consent decree. The Court affirmed the ITC’s enforcement of the consent decree and the civil penalty against DeLorne.

Description of Pros and Cons of Patent Features Not Required for Negative Claims Limitation

Federal Circuit precedent holds that negative claim limitations in a patent claim (describing a patent by stating what it is not) satisfy the written description requirements for patents when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 2015-1179 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2015), the Court extended this precedent by holding that “properly describing alternative features – without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature” – would constitute a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. In this case, Netlist, a manufacturer of computer system memory modules, amended one of its patents to include a negative claim limitation that excluded three types of signals from the description of its patent. Inphi argued that simply stating “DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals” was not adequate under Santarus. Inphi argued that the phrase “reason to exclude” requires more than properly describing alternative features of the patented invention, while Netlist disagreed. The Court sided with Netlist, holding that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations, beyond what is required by statute (35 U.S.C. § 112). All that is required to satisfy the written description standard of § 112 for negative claim limitations according to the Court are “properly described alternative features.”

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Italian FlagBy Shailin Thomas – Edited by Travis West

In October, Italy dropped its opposition to the European Union’s Unitary Patent legislation and joined the 25 other countries that have agreed to the regulations set forth in EU Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012, bringing the Unitary Patent system one step closer to realization.

The Unitary Patent system seeks to streamline and simplify the current patent system in Europe.  Currently, each state issues and enforces its own patents within its jurisdiction, which means that patents must be obtained through each national patent office for Europe-wide protection.  It is possible to obtain a “European Patent” from the European Patent Office (EPO), but this is simply a bundle of national patents, which must be approved by their respective national patent offices — and those nations’ courts are the only available forums for enforcement.  This process is both lengthy and expensive, often costing around €36,000 to secure patent validation in all the EU member states, according to IP Watchdog. The Unitary Patent system would be a comprehensive and alternative process by which the EPO could issue patents that would be enforceable in all of the participating states. A specialized Unified Patent Court would handle litigation arising out of patent disputes.  By creating this single system for the issuance and enforcement of patents, the Unitary Patent legislation hopes to increase efficiency and consistency in intellectual property rights across Europe.

Until recently, Italy had been one of the strongest opponents of the Unitary Patent. Along with Spain, it challenged the legislation in 2013 before the European Court of Justice, claiming that the new regulations would prove detrimental to the social and economic cohesion of the European Union. The challenge, however, proved unsuccessful, and Italy did not join Spain in its subsequent unsuccessful challenge that claimed that the Unitary Patent’s translation policies are discriminatory against those who do not speak one of the system’s three official languages (French, English, and German), into which all patents must be translated.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Hacked By Over-X

By Mila Owen – Edited by Henry Thomas

In the wake of the release of the sixth round of section 1201 exemptions, both the DMCA and the rulemaking process of Library of Congress continue to draw criticisms and concern about practicality, overreaching, and abuse.

On October 27, 2015, the Library of Congress released its sixth round of official exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) Section 1201, which prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures (TPMs). The DMCA, enacted in 1998, criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works (TPMs). Section 1201 makes it a copyright infringement to bypass a TPM, even if this entails no actual infringement of the copyright itself. The Library of Congress grants exemptions to §1201 every three years in a process known as the triennial review, where proponents of exemptions may seek renewal or expansion of exemptions or the granting of new exemptions in order to circumvent TPMs for non-infringing uses.

The IT Law Wiki provides a useful summary of the §1201 exception process.  Notably, in order for an exemption to be granted, the party advocating for the exemption has the burden to prove that the section otherwise interferes with noninfringing use.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Kayla Haran – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Court Finds Negative Claim Limitation Meets Written Description Requirements

In Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 2015-1179 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that Netlist Inc.’s amended patent claims met the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1. Netlist amended and narrowed its claims on the patent at issue, introducing a negative claim limitation after the Board’s inter partes reexamination, which was initiated by Inphi Corporation. The Board had previously rejected several of Netlist’s claims as obvious in view of the prior art, but withdrew its rejections after Netlist’s amendment.

The Federal Circuit previously held in Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2012) that negative claim limitations require an adequate description of a reason to exclude the relevant limitation, and Inphi argued that Netlist’s amendment failed to provide such reasons. The Board rejected this argument, finding in Netlist’s amended specifications implicit reasons for its exclusions. Inphi appealed the Board’s denial of Inphi’s request for rehearing. The Federal Circuit found that, contrary to Inphi’s arguments, Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that properly describing alternative features as Netlist did, even without articulating the advantages and disadvantages of those features, can properly constitute a reason for exclusion under the Santarus standard. For these reasons, the court upheld the Board’s finding that Netlist’s negative claim limitation properly met the written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 23 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
California Flag

IMDb Challenges Cali

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso IMDb.com, Inc. v. ...

Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...

computer-typing1

Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...

Unknown

Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...