A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Patenting Bioprinting

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas

Bioprinting, the3D-printing living tissues, is real and may be widely available in the near future. This emerging technology has generated controversies about its regulation; the Gartner analyst group speculates a global debate in 2016 about whether to regulate bioprinting or ban it altogether. Another equally important issue which this paper will explore is whether bioprinting is patentable.



More than a White Rabbit: Alice Requires Substantial Difference Prior to Embarking on Patent Eligibility

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first software patent case in thirty-three years. The impact of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank is broad but it appears to be a decision that was long overdue to address the many issues facing patentability of subject matter eligibility in various arenas where such issues are dominant.



Legal and Policy Aspects of the Intersection Between Cloud Computing and the U.S. Healthcare Industry

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom

The U.S. healthcare industry is undergoing a technological revolution, inspiring complicated questions regarding patient privacy and the security of stored personal health information. How can our society capitalize on the benefits of digitization while also adequately addressing these concerns?



Net Neutrality Developments in the European Union

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman

This contribution will consider current moves in the European Union to legislate net neutrality regulation at the regional level. The existing regulatory landscape governing Internet Service Providers in the EU will be outlined, along with net neutrality initiatives at the national level in countries such as Slovenia and the Netherlands. The new proposals to introduce enforceable net neutrality rules throughout the EU will be detailed, with comparison made to the recent FCC proposals in the US, and the extent to which these proposals can be considered adequate to advance the interests of Internet users.



Newegg Wins Patent Troll Case After Court Delays

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis West

The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently issued a final judgement for online retailer Newegg, twenty months after trial, vacating a $2.3 million jury award for TQP. TQP, a patent assertion entity commonly known as a “patent troll,” collected $45 million in settlements for the patent in question before Newegg’s trial.


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

Patenting Bioprintin

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas “Patenting tends to ...


More than a White Ra

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West I. Introduction On ...

Prescription Medication Spilling From an Open Medicine Bottle

Legal and Policy Asp

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom The United ...

Photo By: Razor512 - CC BY 2.0

Net Neutrality Devel

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman 1.      Introduction This contribution will ...


Newegg Wins Patent T

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis ...