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

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016.

Read More...

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

By Kayla Haran – Edited by Jaehwan Park

Pokémon Go Captures Full Google Account Permissions on iOS

Senate Committee Holds Hearing on FCC’s Proposed Broadband Privacy Rules

Federal Judge Suppresses Evidence Obtained Using Stingray in First Such Decision

Read More...

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

The Federal Circuit, in the closely divided en banc decision of SCA v. First Quality, held that Congress had authorized laches as a defense against legal remedy for patent infringement. This contradicts the Supreme Court’s recent holding that for copyright law, laches only applies to legal remedy when Congress hasn’t established a statute of limitations. The Supreme Court has granted cert to review the Federal Circuit’s holding.

Read More...

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

U.S. and E.U. officials formally approved the “Privacy Shield” this week, a new agreement governing the transfer of data between Europe and the United States. The final adoption of the transatlantic agreement comes after several years of negotiations, which were accelerated last October when the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated a key part of the U.S.-E.U. “Safe Harbor,” an agreement that had previously enabled American companies to transfer data from the European Union without running afoul of its stricter privacy laws.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest

 

By Frederick Ding — Edited by Jaehwan Park

 

Patent Assertion Entity Not a “Patentee” By Itself

 

Induced Infringement Verdict Not Defeated by Defendant’s Unreasonable Belief in Noninfringement

 

Continuations Can Be Filed on Same Day as Earlier Application’s Issuance

Read More...

By Sharona Hakimi

Facebook Responds to Privacy Concerns

The New York Times reports that on May 26, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg publicly addressed a growing number of recent complaints about Facebook’s privacy settings. The settings sparked “vociferous complaints” across the globe from users, privacy advocates, and government officials. The current system requires users to sort through over 150 privacy options, including the controversial “instant personalization” feature, which allows third party sites to access users’ personal data. Zuckerberg announced plans that includes simplifying privacy controls and revealing minimal information when users search the directory.

Congress Opposes FCC’s Proposal to Regulate Broadband

CNET reports that in the past week, 282 Republican and Democratic members of Congress signed letters to the FCC expressing their concerns over the FCC’s proposal to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. The FCC is currently drafting new Net neutrality rules in the wake of Comcast Corp. v FCC, and to reassert its authority the agency has proposed a “third way” of regulating broadband by reclassifying it as a Title II telecommunication service. This would subject broadband services to many of the same rules that apply to traditional telephone services. The letters included requested that the FCC refrain from reclassifying broadband, as Congress plans to address the issue in its upcoming efforts to revise the Communications Act.

Student Files Suit Against Pennsylvania High School in Sexting Case

Wired reports that an unnamed 19-year-old filed suit against her former Pennsylvania high school after school officials confiscated and searched her phone, and found semi-nude photos of her. The student was one of sixteen at Tunkhannock Area High School threatened with criminal child pornography charges in 2009 unless she agreed to six months of probation, drug testing, and attendance of a five-week, 10-hour program. Although she was not charged, the student is seeking to have the images, which are available in the government record, destroyed; she is also seeking reimbursement for the educational course and lost wages.

Posted On Jun - 1 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Ninth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against Online Check-Issuer Qchex
By Leocadie Welling – Edited by Chinh Vo

Federal Trade Commission v. Neovi, Inc., No. 09-55093 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010)
Slip Opinion

On May 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and an injunction granted by the Southern District of California against appellant Neovi, Inc (“Neovi”). The FTC had brought claims alleging that Neovi, through its online Qchex service, had engaged in “unfair methods of competition” by issuing unverified checks through its website. The court agreed with the FTC, finding that appellant did not take sufficient measures to prevent and address fraud. The injunction prohibits Qchex from continuing to operate without following a court-specified verification process. It further orders Qchex to disgorge its total revenues, which the district court found to be in the amount of $535,358.

Eric Goldman provides an overview of the case and its factual background, and criticizes the opinion’s failure to discuss the relevance of the statutory protection for Internet services found in 47 U.S.C. § 230. Digital Society has a brief discussion of the decision. Ars Technica has two posts from 2009 (February and November) that provide useful background on the case. (more…)

Posted On May - 29 - 2010 1 Comment READ FULL POST

District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Against File Sharing Service
By Leocadie Welling Edited by Ryan Ward

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Rapidshare, No. 09-CV-2596 (S.D. Cal. May 18, 2010)
Opinion

On May 18, the District Court for the Southern District of California denied plaintiff Perfect 10’s motion for a preliminary injunction against RapidShare, a file sharing service. The court held that Perfect 10 failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their direct and contributory copyright infringement claims against RapidShare, finding it particularly significant that RapidShare does not index its users’ files.

The court also noted that, when ruling on motions for preliminary injunctions, the Ninth Circuit has continued to use a presumption of irreparable harm when a plaintiff demonstrates a likelihood of success on the merits, in contrast to the Second Circuit which recently held in Salinger v. Colting that a plaintiff must show “he has suffered an irreparable injury” prior to obtaining a preliminary injunction.

MediaPost provides a brief overview of the decision, noting the court’s comparison of RapidShare to Napster. Ars Technica discusses the decision, noting past unsuccessful legal action by Perfect 10 and a recent German legal victory by RapidShare. The Legal Satyricon summarizes and criticizes the decision, arguing that RapidShare and similar sites are obviously liable for contributory infringement. (more…)

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

Another Win for the Record Companies in an Inducement Claim Against Lime Wire
By Sharona Hakimi Edited By Ryan Ward

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, No. 06 CV 5936 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2010)
Slip Opinion

On May 11, 2010, the Southern District Court of New York granted summary judgment against Lime Wire for inducing copyright infringement of Arista Records’ music, but denied summary judgment for either side on Arista’s contributory infringement claim. The court held that Lime Wire committed a “substantial amount of copyright infringement,” induced others to commit copyright infringement, and engaged in unfair competition using its LimeWire application. Additionally, the court held Lime Wire’s chairman and CEO, Mark Gorton, and its principle investor, the Lime Group, liable for the inducement.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog offers a brief summary of the case. Ars Technica and Eric Goldman discuss the case and the court’s inducement analysis. The New York Times provides background and reports on the reactions of academics and industry members to the case. (more…)

Posted On May - 23 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Emily Hoort

Federal Circuit to Re-Consider TIVO Patent-Infringement Case

Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will be taking a second look at a previous panel decision holding that Dish and EchoStar were violating TiVo’s digital-video recording patent.  The court will consider whether it was error not to give Dish a chance to prove that changes made to Dish software remedied the prior infringement upon TiVo’s patent on “time warp” technology, which allows users to record a TV program and later play it back.  TiVo is seeking a court order to halt Dish’s DVR service and to force the company to pay licensing fees.  TiVo is also seeking around $300 million in damages, in addition to the $100 million Dish paid after the original judgment.

Supreme Court Declines Appeal of FCC “Must-Carry” Rule

Yahoo reports that the Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of the case Cablevision v. FCC, in which Cablevision challenges an FCC “must-carry” rule.  “Must-carry” rules require cable television operators to carry local broadcast stations.  Cablevision’s appeal was in response to a New York federal appeals court decision holding that Cablevision must carry the signal of a home-shopping station.  The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal accords with previous recommendations of the Obama Administration to avoid challenges to the 18-year-old “must-carry” rule.

Microsoft Files Lawsuit against Salesforce.com

CNET reports that Microsoft has filed a federal lawsuit against Salesforce.com.  Microsoft claims that Salesforce.com has infringed on nine patents involving back-end and user interface features.  This is only the fourth patent-infringement lawsuit that Microsoft has ever brought against one of its competitors.  Previous Microsoft cases have been settled quickly, but the trajectory for this lawsuit is unclear.  Microsoft is seeking a jury trial, triple damages and injunctions.  Thus far, Salesforce.com has declined to comment.

Posted On May - 23 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Oracle Renews Motion

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="213"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Kayla Haran - Edited by Jaehwan Park Pokémon Go Captures ...

Unknown

Laches As a Defense

By Evan Tallmadge - Edited by Henry Thomas The Supreme Court, ...

European Commission

U.S. and E.U. Leader

By Danielle Kehl – Edited By Kayla Haran U.S. and E.U. ...

hammer

Federal Circuit Flas

By Frederick Ding — Edited by Jaehwan Park Patent Assertion Entity ...