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

Insuring Patents

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Jennifer Chung and Ariel Simms

Despite its increasing availability, patent insurance—providing defensive protection against claims of patent infringement and funding offensive actions against patent infringers—continues to be uncommon. This Note aims to provide an overview of the patent insurance landscape.

Read More...

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

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Seeks to Establish Federal Cause of Action for Trade Secrets Misappropriation

By Suyoung Jang – Edited by Mila Owen

Following the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval in January of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, the Committee has released Senate Report 114-220 supporting the bill. The bill seeks to protect trade secret owners by creating a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

The Linked Inheritability Between Two Regions of DNA is an Unpatentable Law of Nature

HP Setback in Challenging the Validity of MPHJ’s Distributed Virtual Copying Patent

CardPool Fails to Escape an Invalidity Judgment But Can Still Pursue Amended Claims

Read More...

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

Amicus Brief by EFF and ACLU Urging Illinois State Sex Offender Laws Declared Unconstitutional under First Amendment

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Mila Owen

With the Illinois Supreme Court gearing up to determine the constitutionality of the state’s sex offender registration statute, two advocacy non-profits have filed amicus briefs in support of striking the law down.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Gia Velasquez – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

Federal Court Grants Uber’s Class Action Certification Appeal

Independent Contractor Classification of Uber Drivers May Violate Antitrust Laws

Self-Driving Car Will Be Considered Autonomous Driver

Read More...

Second Patent Case in a Year Ordered Transferred from E.D. Texas
By Stephanie Weiner – Edited by Jad Mills

In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc., et al., No. 911 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009)
Slip Opinion

On December 2, 2009, a Federal Circuit panel granted Hoffman-La Roche’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a patent infringement suit brought by Novartis to the Eastern District of North Carolina.  The Federal Circuit found that district court “clearly abused its discretion” in denying petitioners’ motion to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).  This is the second case within the year that the Federal Circuit has ordered transferred out of the Eastern District of Texas on mandamus.  See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Legal Pad says there was “no earthly reason” for the case to be in the Eastern District of Texas.  Harness, Dickey & Pierce’s legal blog points out that this may portend an easier road for defendants seeking to transfer venue from the Eastern District of Texas, a district considered to be very plaintiff-friendly.  Patently-O summarizes the case. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 7 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Affirms: Spam Patent is Obvious
By Gary Pong – Edited by Jad Mills

Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., No. 2009-1105 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 2, 2009).
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Southern District of Florida’s decision granting summary judgment to invalidate plaintiff’s U.S. Patent No. 6,631,400 (“‘400 patent”) due to the obvious nature of the asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The Federal Circuit held that the ‘400 patent failed the KSR test for obviousness. The patent specification sets out a series of steps for delivering a prescribed quantity of e-mails to targeted recipients. In so holding, the court noted that the claim was so simple and obvious that “ordinary skill in the relevant art required only a high school education and limited marketing and computer experience.” Furthermore, such a case would not require expert opinion and may rely on the common sense available to the person of ordinary skill.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case. The Patent Prospector features a thorough analysis of the judicial opinion. (more…)

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

By Eric Engle

Prosecutors Drop Controversial “Cyberbullying” Case: Possible Appeal?

On November 20, Wired reported that the federal prosecutors in the Lori Drew cyberbullying case did not plan to appeal Drew’s acquittal. The trial judge reversed Drew’s criminal conviction by a jury, holding that criminal penalties for violating a website’s terms of service would be unconstitutional. Although Drew won’t have to further defend against criminal charges for her alleged harassment of a teenage girl who later committed suicide, she might still be liable for civil penalties if the teenage girl’s family decides to sue.

UK Possibly Increasing Standards for Libel Jurisdiction

Britain has long had plaintiff-friendly libel laws relative to the United States and other common-law countries. As a result, plaintiffs will often seek to bring their libel cases in the UK, even if another country might be more closely connected to the facts of the case. However, the availability of Britain as a forum for libel claims may be narrowing – Citizen Media Law Blog reports that a recent High Court decision dismissed a libel claim concerning a posting on a South African magazine’s website, reasoning that the country’s ties to the case were insufficient when only “about [four] visits might have been made by one or more visitors based in the UK.” Although the holding is not permanent British law unless either Parliament or the British Supreme Court endorses it, the decision may signal tougher jurisdictional requirements for British libel claims.

Woman Fighting Insurer After Facebook Posting Leads to Denial of Benefits

CBC News reports that a Quebec woman has had insurance benefits for depression cancelled after publishing vacation photos. The insurance agent claimed that photos of her enjoying her vacation were evidence that she wasn’t depressed. The woman is planning to challenge the denial, and her lawyer has described the Facebook investigation as inappropriate. In response to criticisms about Facebook postings as evidence of mental condition, the insurer stated: “We would not deny or terminate a valid claim solely based on information published on websites such as Facebook.”

ACLU Launches dotRights.org

The Stanford Center for Internet and Society reports that the ACLU of Northern California has launched an online educational resource on privacy and free speech in the internet. The site includes a retro-style video, Facebook quiz, and the chance for developers and legal activists to get involved.

Posted On Nov - 29 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Affirms Muscle Supplement Patent Invalid as Anticipated by Prior Art Advertisement
By Ian B. Brooks – Edited by Miriam Weiler

Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., No. 2009-1018 (Fed. Cir. November 19, 2009).
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas decision invalidating Iovate Health Sciences’ U.S. Patent 6,100,287 (“’287”) as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

The Federal Circuit held that the advertisement for Iovate’s protein supplement published in Flex magazine rendered the patent obvious and invalid. The court found that the advertisement was an anticipatory printed publication that disclosed the ‘287 patent claim limitations.  With the knowledge provided in the ad, the court noted, one skilled in the art could practice an embodiment of the invention.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case. The National Law Journal provides brief comments from each party’s counsel. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 28 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Michelle Berger

Chief Judge of Federal Circuit to Hang Up His Robes

As Patently-O reports, Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals announced on November 20 that he will be retiring from the bench on May 31, 2010. Judge Randall Rader will replace him as chief judge at that time. Throughout his tenure, Michel has been outspoken on patent issue and the role of the court in shaping patent policy. Although he will no longer be able to influence patent law from the bench, some have suggested that Michel may still play an important policy role by attempting to influence patent legislation.

Bell Siblings Squabble Over 3G Ads

On November 18, a judge in the Northern District of Georgia denied AT&T’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Verizon from showing its 3G comparison ads, CNET News reports. AT&T sued Verizon earlier in November over the ads, claiming that, while the advertisements accurately depict AT&T’s relatively sparse 3G coverage, the ads mislead consumers by implying that AT&T doesn’t provide cellular or data coverage in those areas. Verizon has responded that its ads are clearly about 3G service and has modified the ads slightly to highlight the 3G comparison. Despite the unfavorable ruling, AT&T intends to continue the suit against Verizon. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog ponders whether AT&T’s suit may be multiplying the damage done by the Verizon’s ad, as the lawsuit and the media coverage surrounding it have drawn increased attention to the difference in 3G coverage between AT&T and Verizon.

Lexis and Westlaw to Go the Way of Yahoo and AskJeeves?

Google announced new functionality for its Google Scholar project on November 17, adding support for users to search case law and legal journals. Despite the possibility of Google moving into their turf, Lexis and Westlaw appear unphased, explaining that the services are not really competing since Google doesn’t offer headnotes, summaries, cite checking, or the same level of search sophistication. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog acknowledges these shortcomings, but warns that “one underestimates the capabilities of Google at his or her own peril.”

Posted On Nov - 24 - 2009 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Unknown

Insuring Patents

By Yaping Zhang Edited by Jennifer Chung and Ariel Simms Despite its ...

Senate Judiciary Committee

Defend Trade Secrets

By Suyoung Jang – Edited by Mila Owen S.1890 - Defend ...

Flash Digest

Federal Circuit Flas

By Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk The Linked Inheritability ...

Illinois Flag

Amicus Brief by EFF

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Mila Owen On April 6, ...

Fed. Cir. Flash Digest

Flash Digest: News i

By Gia Velasquez – Edited by Ken Winterbottom Federal Court Grants ...