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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Wendy Chu – Edited by Kayla Haran

Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses a Case For Lack of Online Personal Jurisdiction

California District Court Dismisses Trademark Dilution Claim Because of Limited Recognition

eLaw Launches an On-Demand Lawyer Service for Court Appearances




Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Haydn Forrest – Edited by Henry Thomas

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016)

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016)

Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 30, 2016)

Apple v. Samsung (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016)




Massachusetts SJC Clarifies Probable Cause for Cell Phone Seizure


By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Ellora Israni


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed last month a lower court’s decision to suppress information found on a cell phone seized without warrant or probable cause.


In allowing the Commonwealth’s appeal against the order of the Superior Court, the SJC considered two issues under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.



Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Daniel Etcovitch – Edited by Emily Chan

Florida Judge Rules Bitcoin Is Not Equivalent to Money

Illinois Governor Signs Bill Restricting Use of Stingrays

DMCA DRM Circumvention Provision’s Constitutionality Being Challenged



Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Yuan Cao – Edited by Frederick Ding

Mere Commercial Benefit Not Enough to Trigger The On-Sale Bar

Technology-Based Software Solution Can Be Patentable 

Patent Disputes about Siri, iTunes, Notification Push, and Location


Federal Circuit Affirms Exclusion and Cease-and-Desist Orders against GPS Chipmaker
By Gary Pong – Edited by Dmitriy Tishyevich

SiRF Tech., Inc. v. ITC, Appeal 2009-1262 (Fed. Cir., Apr. 12, 2010).
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), which found that SiRF Technology, Inc. (“SiRF”) violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 by unlawfully importing and selling Global Positioning System (“GPS”) devices that infringed upon patents owned by Global Locate, Inc. and Broadcom Corp. (collectively, “Global Locate”).

The Federal Circuit held that: (1) Global Locate had standing to sue for infringement, even though one of the patents in question had been automatically assigned to the inventors’ previous employer under an employment agreement; (2) SiRF’s GPS chips had directly infringed the patents in question; and (3) the asserted method claims were directed to patentable subject matter under the In re Bilski “machine-or-transformation” test because it was tied to a particular machine – the GPS receiver.

The ITC Law Blog provides an overview of the case and its history. Patently-O features an analysis of the decision and the Patent Prospector has excerpted the key parts of this decision.  (more…)

Posted On Apr - 19 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Tyler Lacey

Bank Programmer Pleads Guilty to ATM Hacking

On April 13, 2010, Wired reported that Bank of America employee Rodney Reed Cavelry pleaded guilty to one count of unauthorized computer access, after installing software on more than 100 ATMs that allowed him to steal more than $304,000 over a seven-month period last year. Bank of America identified Caverly’s theft internally, and was able to recover at least $167,000 in cooperation with the United States Secret Service. Bank of America had employed Cavelry since 2007 to write “application software and troubleshooting programs.” Cavelry will face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 when he is sentenced this summer.

Canadian Regulator Warns Against Foreign Ownership of Telecommunications Companies

On April 13, 2010, The Toronto Star reported that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) warned against allowing majority foreign ownership of Canadian telecommunications companies. Konrad von Finckenstein, CRTC’s chairman, argued that a proposed law allowing additional foreign investment in telecommunications companies would create a “branch plant communications industry” in Canada. Complicating the matter is the fact that Canada’s leading telecommunications companies are also broadcasting companies, which are subjected to additional cultural regulations on minimum levels of Canadian content. von Finckenstein believes that “there is no way to separate telecoms from broadcasters,” and that the best strategy is to “to create uniform rules that would apply to both industries, and to keep control firmly in Canadian hands.”

Italian Judge Explains Rationale for Guilty Verdicts in Illegal Video Case

On April 13 CNET reported on Italian Judge Oscar Magi’s 111 page explanation for the guilty verdict that he entered against three Google employees on February 24. Judge Magi believed that “commercial exploitation” was Google’s motive for allowing a video, depicting an autistic teenager being harassed and attacked, to remain online for two months. In response, Google argued that the “conviction attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built” and indicated that it would appeal the verdicts.

Posted On Apr - 17 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jyoti Uppuluri

UK Passes Controversial Digital Economy Bill

The Guardian and the Electronic Frontier Foundation reported that on April 8, the U.K. Parliament passed the controversial Digital Economy Bill in a late-night “wash-up” session after just two hours of debate. Two provisions of the bill in particular raised concerns among the citizenry and telecommunications companies in the U.K. The Guardian reports that the bill contains a broad-ranging clause allowing the Secretary of State for Business to block a site that “has been, is being or is likely to be used for or in connection with an activity that infringes copyright.” EFF notes that the bill also includes a provision allowing for the disconnection of the “Internet connection of any household in the U.K. with an IP address alleged to have engaged in copyright infringement.”

30-Year Computer Ban for Sex Offender Overturned by DC Court of Appeals

Wired reported that on April 2, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated a 30-year computer ban imposed on a sex-offender as a condition of his supervised release. The Court stated that the immutable ban on computer use was “substantively unreasonable” and “aggressively interferes with the goal of rehabilitation,” including obtaining employment. Citizen Media Law Project argues that while the overturning of the ban was a good outcome, the reasoning of the court is troublesome due to its implication that a computer ban providing for a shorter duration and probation officer approved waivers would be acceptable.

Spy Network Targeting Indian Government Uncovered

Ars Technica reported that the researchers who previously uncovered GhostNet, a spy network targeting Tibetan exiles, have recently uncovered a separate network targeting the Indian government, among other entities. This network has been traced back to a hacking community in Chengdu, China. The majority of machines attacked by the network are associated with India, including “Indian embassies and consulates,” as well as commercial groups like the Times of India and the New Delhi rail station. The spy network obtained “everything from information on missile systems being developed by India to a list of visas issued by Indian embassies.”

Posted On Apr - 12 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

D.C. Circuit Denies FCC Jurisdiction to Mandate Net Neutrality
By Tyler Lacey – Edited by Jad Mills

Comcast Corp. v FCC, No. 08-1291 (D.C. Cir., Apr. 6, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated an order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which had asserted jurisdiction over Comcast’s network management policies and had ordered Comcast to cease discriminating against peer-to-peer network traffic.

The D.C. Circuit held that the FCC does not have ancillary jurisdiction over Comcast’s Internet service under the language of the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the FCC the power to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with [the Act], as may be necessary in the execution of its functions.” 47 U.S.C. § 154(i). The Court did not find a sufficient statutory basis in the FCC’s mandate to provide “rapid, efficient” communications services to authorize it to regulate the behavior of Internet service providers.

Internet Evolution describes the Court as having “managed to completely destroy the very foundation upon which the FCC has based its net neutrality rules” and questions the necessity of any internet regulation at all. The Wall Street Journal argues that this decision “deal[s] a blow to big Web commerce companies and other proponents of ‘net neutrality.’” However, Wired reports that the FCC remains optimistic that it can still achieve its goal of “preserving an open internet” because the “court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open internet [n]or did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end.” Comcast responded to the Court’s decision by declaring that it “remains committed to the FCC’s existing open Internet principles, and . . . will continue to work constructively with this FCC as it determines how best to increase broadband adoption and preserve an open and vibrant Internet.” (more…)

Posted On Apr - 11 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tiffany’s Trademark Infringement Claim Against eBay
By Dmitriy Tishyevich – Edited by Jad Mills

Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc., Case No. 08-3947 (2d Cir., Apr. 1, 2010)
Slip Opinion

On April 1, the Second Circuit largely affirmed the holdings of the district court in the Southern District of New York. The court concluded that despite the evidence that eBay had general knowledge that some of its customers had used its website to sell counterfeit Tiffany merchandise, eBay itself could not be held liable for direct or contributory trademark infringement or for trademark dilution. It remanded the case, however, to determine whether eBay could be held liable for false advertising.

Eric Goldman, who had previously commented on the district court opinion, provides a summary of the Second Circuit’s decision.  Larry Downes for the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society views the decision “a matter of economic necessity,” arguing that placing the burden on online marketplaces rather than on manufacturers “would effectively mean the end of eBay and sites like it.” Rebecca Tushnet comments on the opinion, focusing on the false advertising holding. Ron Coleman of the Likelihood of Confusion blog provides some additional commentary and criticism.


Posted On Apr - 9 - 2010 1 Comment READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Fed. Cir. Flash Digest

Flash Digest: News i

By Wendy Chu - Edited by Kayla Haran Delaware Supreme Court ...


Federal Circuit Flas

By Haydn Forrest - Edited by Henry Thomas Affinity Labs of ...


Massachusetts SJC Cl

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Ellora Israni Commonwealth v. Onyx ...


Flash Digest: News i

By Daniel Etcovitch - Edited by Emily Chan Florida Judge Rules ...


Federal Circuit Flas

By Yuan Cao - Edited by Frederick Ding Mere Commercial Benefit ...