Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions
By Jessica Vosgerchian – Edited by Dorothy Du

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

On October 25, the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress announced new recommendations for exemptions to Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) effective October 28. Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological controls found in electronic devices that control access to copyrighted works. Section 1201(a)(1)(B), however, allows the Register to grant exemptions to be reviewed every three years. In this year’s review, the Register upheld the legality of jailbreaking smartphones and decrypting DVD and e-book controls for the visually- and hearing-impaired. The Register also broadened exemptions for fair use of video excerpts. However, the new rules prohibit “unlocking” smartphones purchased after January 2013, forbid jailbreaking tablets and game consoles, and prohibit “space shifting.”

(more…)

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc.
By Suzanne Van Arsdale – Edited by Sounghun Lee

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:12-Cr-137 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2012)
Indictment hosted by legaltimes.typepad.com

The Department of Justice brought a criminal indictment against South Korea-based Kolon Industries Inc. (“Kolon”) and five of its executives in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count of conspiracy to convert trade secrets, four counts of theft of trade secrets, and one count of obstruction of justice.

According to the indictment, filed on August 21, 2012, Kolon and its executives engaged in years of corporate espionage. The government accused Kolon of paying former and current employees of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”) and Teijin Ltd. and its subsidiaries (“Teijin”) to reveal confidential and proprietary information related to the manufacture of synthetic fiber, in violation of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (the “Act”). Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–294, 110 Stat. 3488 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839 (2006)).

The Wall Street Journal and Reuters provide an overview of the indictment. Bloomberg Businessweek noted that Kolon’s alleged theft of trade secrets has already resulted in a jury verdict awarding DuPont nearly $920 million and a prison sentence for a former DuPont employee who pled guilty to theft of trade secrets.

(more…)

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
By Dorothy Du – Edited by Daniella Adler

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., No. CV 10-3633 ODW (RZx), (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012)
Slip opinion

The District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the heirs of Joseph Shuster, the first illustrator of Superman, signed away their right to reclaim Superman copyrights in an agreement with DC Comics (“DC”). The court granted plaintiff DC’s motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that a 1992 agreement between the Shusters and DC barred the Shusters from terminating copyright grants to DC. DC Comics, slip. op. at 7. The court also found that section 304(d) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides former copyright owners a termination right, did not apply. Id. at 5.

Ars Technica explains copyright termination doctrine and points out that Pacific Pictures Corporation is a joint venture owned by the defendants and their attorney in the case, Toberoff. The Los Angeles Times highlights the importance of the victory to Warner Bros., DC’s parent company. If DC had lost the case, the studio, which is releasing the movie Man of Steel next June, would have been unable to continue using certain elements of the Superman mythos.

(more…)

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
By David LeRay – Edited by Michael Hoven

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California, which had granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone. The case was decided by Judges Prost, Moore, and Reyna, who acted unanimously.

The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Apple established it was at risk of irreparable harm, one of the necessary factors under the eBay test elaborated by the Supreme Court to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction. See Apple, No. 2012-1507, slip op. at 5 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). Specifically, Apple did not prove that a “sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Id. at 6.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case and argues that the decision elevates the preliminary injunction standard and thus makes it more difficult for patentees to obtain injunctive relief. Reuters states that the case is an implicit endorsement of Judge Richard Posner’s skepticism regarding remedies in the context of smartphone feature patents and that the case is a “palpable blow” to Apple’s smartphone legal strategy.

(more…)

Senior Exec. Ass’n v. United States
By Mary Grinman – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

Senior Exec. Ass’n v. United States, No. 8:12-cv-02297-AW (S.D. Md. Sept. 13, 2012)
Slip opinion

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Maryland granted a motion for a temporary preliminary injunction, enjoining the United States from executing any part of Section 11 of the Stock Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (“STOCK Act” or “Act”), and from obliging federal employees to divulge any financial information that is subject to Internet publication by federal agencies.

Judge Williams ruled that the plaintiffs’ interests in protecting their privacy are more likely than not to outweigh the government’s interest in disclosing their financial information. Senior Exec. Ass’n, slip op. at 16. The court noted that privacy interests have become more significant in light of the “Information Age,” which makes it possible to rapidly assemble and spread immense quantities of information. Id. at 9.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog provides a brief overview of the case. Corporate Counsel provides additional background information on the STOCK Act. Joe Davidson of the Washington Post criticizes the Act as “rushed,” and discusses the impact of the Act and the court’s ruling on individual federal employees.

(more…)