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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Steven Wilfong

Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based on inequitable conduct

ITC’s ruling that uPI violated Consent Order affirmed

Court rules that VeriFone devices did not infringe on payment terminal software patents

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design

French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed

Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement

Read More...

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

Silk Road Founder Loses Argument That the FBI Illegally Hacked Servers to Find Evidence against Him

By Travis West  — Edited by Mengyi Wang

The alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was denied the motion to suppress evidence in his case. Ulbricht argued that the FBI illegally hacked the Silk Road servers to search for evidence to use in search warrants for the server. The judge denied the motion because Ulbricht failed to establish he had any privacy interest in the server.

Read More...

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

Trademark Infringement or First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech?

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys

On October 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, urging  that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”. The brief argues that the use of the names of organizations to comment, critique, and parody, is constitutionally protected by the speaker’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Read More...

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

Twitter goes to court over government restrictions limiting reporting on surveillance requests

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas

Twitter on Oct. 7 sued the government, asking a federal district court to rule that it was allowed to reveal the numbers of surveillance requests it receives in greater detail. Twitter opposes complying with the rules agreed upon by the government and other tech companies in a settlement earlier this year, and argues that the rules violated its rights under the First Amendment.

Read More...

In re Bilski Redefined?
By Briahna Gray – Edited by Anthony Kammer

In re Lewis Ferguson, Darryl Costin and Scott C. Harris
Federal Circuit, March 6, 2009, Serial No. 09/387,823
Order

On March 6, 2009, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that a marketing paradigm for multiple independent software companies fashioned by Lewis Ferguson, Darryl Costin, and Scott C. Harris was not patentable under the U.S. Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Judge Gajarsa, writing for the majority, applied the test set forth in In re Bilski opinion from October 30, 2008, which rejected the “useful, concrete and tangible result” test the Federal Circuit had established ten years earlier in State Street v. Signature Financial Group. Judge Newman argued in her concurrence that the majority redefines Bilski and unduly undermines legitimate tests established by precedent, introducing ambiguity into the law.

The authors at Mass Law Blog gave a brief description of the case and applaud the outcome. PatentlyO.com explores the case with commentary. The Digest covered the In re Bilski decision back in October.
(more…)

Posted On Mar - 15 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Mary J. Blige’s “Family Affair” Not a Copyright Violation
By Jia Ryu – Edited by Anthony Kammer

Jones v. Blige
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, March 9, 2009
Slip Opinion

On March 9, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a Michigan district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, Mary J. Blige in a copyright infringement case. Plaintiffs Leonard Jones and James E. White had filed suit against Defendants Mary J. Blige, Andre Young (aka “Dr. Dre”), Universal Music Group (“UMG”), and others for copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the songs were not substantially similar and that the Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish Defendants’ access to their work under the “corporate receipt” doctrine. Exclusive Rights offers commentary, focusing on the distinction made in this case between the corporate receipt doctrine and “bare corporate receipt.” The Michigan Messenger briefly summarized the opinion here. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 12 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Supreme Court Holds that FDA Regulation Does Not Preempt State Tort Claim
By Caitlyn Ross – Edited by Miriam Weiler

Wyeth v. Levine
Supreme Court of the United States, March 4, 2009, No. 06-1249
Slip Opinion

On March 4th, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the judgment of the Vermont Supreme Court, holding that federal drug labeling regulations do not preempt state failure-to-warn lawsuits.  The Supreme Court held that compliance with FDA labeling requirements did not preempt Levine’s failure-to-warn claim based on what she alleged was defective labeling of Wyeth’s anti-nausea drug Phenergan. In so holding, the Court concluded that Congress did not intend to preempt state-law failure-to-warn actions.  It also rejected Wyeth’s claim that the Court should defer to an FDA statement, made in the preamble to a 2006 regulation, that state tort suits threatened the FDA’s statutory mandate.

Briefs and relevant court documents are available here at the SCOTUS wiki.  The SCOTUS Blog provides an overview of the case. Drug and  Device Law Blog suggests that the decision does not eliminate preemption alcims, but does make them far more difficult to win.  The Wall Street Journal Law Blog features an analysis of the decision.  The Volokh Conspiracy notes a decrease in deference to agencies.

(more…)

Posted On Mar - 9 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Maryland’s Highest Court Adopts Dendrite Standard for Unmasking Anonymous Forum Posters in Defamation Actions
By Evan Kubota –- Edited by Miriam Weiler

Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie
Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 27, 2009, No. 63
Opinion

On February 27th, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed a lower court’s order compelling discovery of the identities of five anonymous Internet forum posters in a defamation action. The court had granted certiorari on its own initiative.  While the court’s holding required it to consider only a pleading issue, it went on to offer guidance to lower courts in future cases involving anonymous Internet speakers in a defamation action.  In doing so, the court adopted the standard from Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

Nixon Peabody’s Digital Media/Internet Law Blog offers analysis of the opinion, concluding that the Dendrite test is “emerging as the leading test across jurisdictions in anonymous Internet speaker cases.”  Ars Technica compares this case to other unsuccessful attempts to uncover the identities of anonymous Internet posters. The Washington Post quotes Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer for the consumer advocacy group that argued the case for Independent Newspapers, who characterizes the opinion as reaffirming the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

Citizens for Greater Centreville links to the oral arguments and appellate brief in the case.

(more…)

Posted On Mar - 6 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Eli Lilly Granted Stay Extension, Prevents Teva’s Generic Alternative Until March 9th
By Brian Kozlowski – Edited by Anna Lamut

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharma
Federal Circuit, February 24, 2009, No. 2009-1071
Opinion

On February 24th, the Federal Circuit affirmed two to one an order by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana extending the 30-month statutory stay on FDA approval of Teva Pharmaceuticals‘ generic version of Eli Lilly‘s postmenopausal osteoporosis drug, Evista®. The stay was extended until March 9, 2009, when trial was set to begin for Lilly’s suit against Teva, in which Lilly alleged that Teva infringed four method patents.  Teva filed for and received an expedited appeal.  Judge Rader, writing for the two-judge majority with Chief Judge Michel, found that Teva “fail[ed] to ‘reasonably cooperate’” in expediting the lawsuit by altering its product last minute and because of multiple delays in producing critical discovery. Controversially, the court based its decision also on allowing Eli Lilly the time to prepare, rather then solely on the factors mandated by the statute.

Patent Docs offers a description of the case’s history, and Patently-O provides a summary of the case.

Patent Baristas notes the importance of even a short stay: Evista accounted for $1.075 billion in sales in 2008, meaning that a two-week extension could mean revenues of $41 million.

Patent Hawk’s Patent Prospector notes surprise at Judge Prost’s dissent, stating that “[f]or a court that regularly takes liberties interpreting the law, Prost strikes a pose as a religious constructionist to statute.”
(more…)

Posted On Mar - 2 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...