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

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso

IMDb is challenging the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1687 (“AB 1687”), a California law requiring IMDb to remove ages from its website upon request from paid subscribers, claiming that the law violates the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

Read More...

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

Facebook Blocks British Insurance Company from Basing Premiums on Posts and Likes

By Javier Careaga– Edited by Mila Owen

Admiral Insurance has created an initiative called firstcarquote, which analyzes Facebook activity of first-time car owners. The firstcarquote algorithm determines risk based on personality traits and habits that are linked to safe driving. Firstcarquote was recalled two hours before its official launch and then was launched with reduced functionality after Facebook denied authorization, stating that the initiative breaches Facebook’s platform policy.

Read More...

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

Airbnb challenges New York law regulating short-term rentals

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari

Airbnb filed a complaint in the Federal District Court of the Southern District of New York seeking to “enjoin and declare unlawful the enforcement against Airbnb” of the recent law that prohibits  the advertising of short-term rentals on Airbnb and other similar websites.  Airbnb argued that the new law violated its rights to free speech and due process, and that it was inconsistent with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects online intermediaries that host or republish speech from a range of liabilities.

Read More...

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

Medtronic v. Bosch post-Cuozzo: PTAB continues to have the final say on inter partes review

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) reaffirmed its earlier order, dismissing Medtronic’s appeal against a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The PTAB had dismissed Medtronic’s petition for inter partes review of Bosch’s patents, since Medtronic had failed to disclose all real parties in interest, as required by 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(2).

 

Read More...

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

California DMV Discuss Rules on Autonomous Vehicles

DOJ Release Guidelines on CFAA Prosecutions

Illinois Supreme Court Rule in Favor of State Provisions Requiring Disclosure of Online Identities of Sex Offenders

Research Shows Concerns for Crucial Infrastructure Information Leaks

Read More...

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Colette Ghazarian – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board Under No Obligation to Review Evidence Not Originally Presented

The Federal Circuit, in In Re: Thomas Steed, 2014-1458 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2015), made clear that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board “cannot be faulted for not reviewing evidence that was not presented to it or to the [patent] Examiner.” This holding was made in the context of an appeal by Thomas Steed of the rejection of his patent application on the ground of obviousness. During the application process, the patent examiner had rejected Steed’s claims based on a pre-grant publication that anticipated Steed’s invention. Steed appealed to the Board, attempting to “swear back” his invention, whereby Steed would establish that he was in possession of the idea or product before the effective date of the Evans publication. Steed submitted a series of new evidence and documents to the Board on appeal and at the Board hearing. The Board held that the new evidence brought at the hearing should have been presented at the outset of the application process, and therefore should not be considered, and, to the extent any new evidence could be considered by the Board, that information was unintelligible and not self-explanatory. The Court agreed with the Board and held that any proof a patent applicant has of an earlier conception date, should have been presented to the patent examiner in the first instance through a continuation application, and the Board is under no obligation to consider new evidence that was not presented in that manner.

“Substantially Pure” Compound Held Obvious When 50/50 Mixture and Pure Compound Prior Art Exists

In Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 2015-1407 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015), the Federal Circuit tackled the unusual issue of patent validity, where the patent involves a substantially pure compound, but a 50% mixture and pure compound are both known in the art. Spectrum had developed and patented a pharmaceutical composition of substantially pure levoleucovorin, a compound used to ameliorate the toxic effects of chemotherapy, containing 92% of the active isomer (mixed with another isomer as a carrier). In 2011, Sandoz submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for a similar pharmaceutical levoleucovorin product, claiming that it did not infringe on five of Spectrum’s patent claims, and, though stipulating to infringement of two others, argued that Spectrum’s patent was invalid as to those claims. The prior art showed that both a 50/50 mixture of the two isomers and a pure compound were already known. The Court held that, given these existing compounds, Spectrum’s claim that its 92% pure compound was nonobvious, fails. The Court concluded that the available prior art could have enabled one of skill in the art to make and use the substantially pure levoleucovorin compound. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Sandoz’ product did not infringe on the remaining claims of Spectrum’s patent because the product did not contain enough of the levoleucovorin compound to constitute infringement.

Federal Circuit Expands Patent Enablement Analysis

In In Re: Steve Morsa, 2015-1107 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2015), the Federal Circuit addressed for the second time the anticipation of claimed inventions by Steve Morsa in a publication entitled Peter Martin Associates Press Release (PMA). The appeal was brought after a finding by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board that the anticipating reference (PMA) was enabled. The Board relied on Morsa’s own specification that the system described in his patent “can be implemented by any programmer of ordinary skill” and found that the PMA disclosure combined with what an average-skilled computer programmer would know rendered the reference enabling. The Court, in a 2-1 decision, held that the Board’s enablement analysis was proper. The Court held that the Board did not err in including the patent application specification itself in conducting its enablement analysis. Taking into account the specification, the Court agreed with the Board that it showed an ordinary programmer could implement the invention. This finding, combined with the PMA disclosure would allow an average computer programmer to make the claimed patent herself. Therefore, the Court determined that Morsa’s patents were anticipated. Morsa’s also argued that the Board utilized novel grounds of rejection of his patents, by considering various facts not typically used in enablement analysis. The majority disagreed, contending that the Board’s statements were merely descriptive and not necessary to the Board’s conclusions. Therefore, they were not part of the Board’s enablement analysis.

Posted On Nov - 4 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Apple LogoBy Shailin Thomas – Edited by Cristina Carapezza

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., No. 3:2014cv00062 (W.D. Wis. 2015)

Link to opinion (hosted by Justia)

The District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted partial judgment for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) in its patent infringement suit against Apple.

The District Court held that Apple’s A7, A8, and A8X processors infringed on WARF’s patent for “a prediction threshold detector preventing data speculation for instructions having a prediction within a predetermined range,” despite the fact that Apple’s processors do not always operate using the infringing technology. In so holding, the court noted that a product still infringes on a patent even if it only infringes under certain circumstances and non-infringing modes of operation are possible. The court cited a number of opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stating that the existence of non-infringing functionality is irrelevant to a patent infringement analysis. After the partial judgment was granted, a jury ordered Apple to pay $234 million in damages.

While the judgment as a matter of law has not been the subject of much controversy, the Christian Science Monitor has expressed concern that this case signals universities are becoming more aggressive in enforcing their patents — a trend also noted by Ars Technica — and conservative news site Breitbart predicts that the size of the damages will encourage this type of litigation.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Sony LogoBy Ann Kristin Glenster — Edited by Ariane Moss

Text of Settlement

The Sony film “The Interview” was meant to take the studio laughing all the way to the top of the box office. But when an anonymous group calling itself Guardians of the Peace hacked into the Sony system and released floods of employee data on the internet, allegedly in protest of the film, the story was no longer a comedy matter. Nearly a year later, Sony has reached a settlement, to be approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, of $8 million to reimburse its employees for identity theft losses, credit-fraud protections services, and legal fees.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 25 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

California FlagBy Sheri Pan — Edited by Ariane Moss

Text of Law

On October 8, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“CalECPA”), thereby heightening privacy protections for digital records.  Under the new regime, state government entities must secure a search warrant to obtain the content and metadata of electronic communications.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 25 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

MicrophoneBy Keke Wu – Edited by Erik Mortensen

In People v. Murillo, 238 Cal. App. 4th 1122 (Ca Ct. App. 2015), a California appellate court reversed a trial court decision, which had dismissed a felony complaint against Anthony Murillo alleging two counts of threatening a crime victim.

The Second Appellate District held that a reasonable listener could have understood a rap song as threatening two rape victims. The Court cited People v. Lowery in finding that the trier of fact must determine whether the defendant’s rap lyrics were a “true threat” outside the protection of the First Amendment. It also concluded that Elonis v. United States, a 2015 Supreme Court case interpreting the mens rea standard for threats under a federal statute, did not apply to the state law at issue.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 24 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
California Flag

IMDb Challenges Cali

By Ellora Israni – Edited by Filippo Raso IMDb.com, Inc. v. ...

Facebook International

Facebook Blocks Brit

By Javier Careaga – Edited by Mila Owen Many insurance companies ...

computer-typing1

Airbnb challenges Ne

By Daisy Joo – Edited by Nehaa Chaudhari Complaint to Declare ...

Unknown

Medtronic v. Bosch p

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Grace Truong Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Li Wang – Edited by Henry Thomas California DMV Discuss ...