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...

The JOLT Digest is proud to introduce our newest feature, Digest Reporter!  In addition to our coverage and commentary on the latest law and technology news, the Digest will now periodically report on important technology-related events at Harvard Law School and other events that may be of interest to the law and technology community.  These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics and events they choose to cover.

While the Digest provides hosting for Digest Reporter, the opinions expressed in the Reports are those of the Authors or named participants alone, and do not reflect any position of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, the JOLT Digest, or the Harvard Law School.

– The Digest Staff Editors

Posted On Apr - 6 - 2010 1 Comment READ FULL POST

District Court Limits the Use of State Secrets Privilege in Warrantless Wiretapping
By Kathryn Freund – Edited by Davis Doherty

Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Obama, No. 07-0109 (N.D. Cal., Mar. 31, 2010)
Memorandum of Decision and Order
(hosted by Electronic Frontier Foundation)

The District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, the defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and the charity’s two attorneys, finding that they presented sufficient non-classified evidence to hold the government liable for electronic surveillance without a warrant in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”).  50 U.S.C. §§ 1801–71.

Chief Judge Walker rejected the government’s argument that the Executive can invoke the State Secrets Privilege (“SSP”) to conceal the existence of a FISA warrant, and thus preclude a case the Executive believes would compromise national security. Instead, the government bore the burden of proving the existence of a FISA warrant once the plaintiffs established sufficient evidence of electronic surveillance. The court argued that Congress enacted FISA to impose judicial review of surveillance that the Executive cannot avoid by invoking the SSP.  In addition, Congress established a procedure under section 1806(f) allowing the government to show the legality of particular instances of surveillance — a procedure the government did not use in this case.

The San Francisco Examiner and Electronic Frontier Foundation provide an overview of the case and the Terrorist Surveillance Program under which the National Security Agency wiretapped Plaintiffs. The New York Times Editorial page views the court’s holding that FISA preempts the SSP as a step in the right direction in the fight against warrantless wiretapping. Wired questions whether the decision will be upheld if appealed. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 4 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Chinh Vo

Moviemakers Sue Tens of Thousands of BitTorrent Users

A coalition of independent filmmakers has sued more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders for copyright infringement in federal court in Washington D.C., the Hollywood Reporter, Esq. blog reports. The series of lawsuits marks the first major move in the U.S. by the movie industry to target individual torrent downloaders, rather than the torrent sites themselves, and is preceded by similar actions in Germany and the U.K. According to the Hollywood Reporter blog, these suits may signal the beginning of a wave of “massive litigation” against movie torrent downloaders, as 30,000 new lawsuits are allegedly forthcoming.

UK Journalist Wins Libel Appeal

The Guardian and Ars Technica report that on April 1, UK science journalist Simon Singh won an important appeal in a libel suit brought against him by the British Chiropractic Association (“BCA”). Singh is accused of libel based on an article he wrote, which described some of the BCA’s treatment practices as “bogus.” In reversing an earlier decision that had required Singh to meet the difficult standard of showing that the BCA was knowingly engaged in false claims, the court accepted Singh’s statements to be a matter of opinion, noting that it was not in the position to settle scientific claims. Singh no longer has to show that his comments were factual and can instead use a “fair comment” defense.

Major Online Service Providers Push Privacy Law Reforms

Wired reports major online service providers, including Google and Microsoft, have combined forces with internet rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation to form Digital Due Process, a coalition pushing for modernization of U.S. privacy laws. The group says that current electronic privacy legislation, particularly the 1986 Electronic Communications Protection Act, needs to be updated to reflect changing technology. Specifically, Digital Due Process advocates the adoption of several principles, such as requiring judicial approval for government access to information about email and phone usage. None of the internet companies that are part of the coalition, however, have announced changes to their own practices.

Posted On Apr - 3 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Court Invalidates Gene Patent
By Elizabeth Akerman – Edited By Davis Doherty

Assn. for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. USPTO, et al. Case no. 09-CV-4514 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2010)
Slip Opinion
(hosted by PatentlyO)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held the patents issued to Myriad Genetics for isolated versions of two human genes to be “directed to a law of nature,” and therefore invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Judge Sweet granted the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment to invalidate 15 claims in 7 patents relating to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.  The court reasoned that isolated DNA containing naturally occurring sequences is not markedly different from the native DNA, and thus falls within the “product of nature” exception to patentable subject matter under § 101. Additionally, Judge Sweet held that the claims regarding comparisons of BRCA sequences to determine whether a mutation is present are invalid under § 101, as they only refer to “abstract mental process.”  The court further notes that even if the claims-in-suit included the physical transformations associated with isolating DNA, this would merely constitute a data-gathering step and would not satisfy § 101.

A brief review of the decision is available at Patent Docs Biotech & Pharma Patent Law & News Blog. PatentlyO suggests that this decision is likely to be reversed by the Federal Circuit. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 3 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Says Patent Preamble Not Limiting
By Debbie Rosenbaum – Edited by Jad Mills

Marrin v. Griffin, Appeal 2009-1031 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 22, 2010)
Slip Opinion

On March 22, 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,154,448, which related to a beverage cup scratch-off label, was invalid because it was anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Judge Dyk, writing for the majority held that the use recited in the preamble, namely that the scratch-off label was “for permitting a user to write thereon without the use of a marking implement.” was not to be treated as a claim limitation. In finding that this use statement in the preamble was not limiting, the court noted that “use descriptions such as this are rarely treated as claim limitations.” The court held that “the mere fact that a structural term in the preamble is part of the claim does not mean that the preamble’s statement of purpose or other description is also part of the claim.”  Because the preamble was not limiting, the patent owner could not use it to distinguish the patent from the prior art, thus allowing the court to invalidate the patent under section 102(b).

Inventive Step and Patent Hawk both offer good overviews of the case. Patent Case Review provides a summary of the legal issues.  Gary Odom of Patent Hawk argues that “Judge Newman got it right, which is to say that this nicely self-contained issue is ripe for en banc review. The inconsistent treatment of preambles begs for clarity.” (more…)

Posted On Mar - 28 - 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 ...