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

ITC’s review of an ALJ’s order was not procedurally sound
By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously vacated and remanded a decision of the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), finding that the ITC exceeded its authority in reviewing an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) order denying a motion for termination. In so holding, the Court rejected the ITC’s attempt to characterize the ALJ’s decision as an initial determination, which would be subject to review.

Read More...

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

Facebook’s experiment of emotional contagion raises concerns
By Jenny Choi – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 17, 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences released a study in which Facebook reduced positive and negative posts on News Feeds to observe any changes in the participants’ posts to test whether emotional states are contagious through verbal expressions. Many have criticized Facebook for the experiment,  finding that Facebook has deceived its users, violated past Consent Orders, and stretched the users’ terms of service agreements too far.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ken Winterbottom

Access to nude photos is a ‘perk’ of working at the NSA, Snowden says

Record label slams YouTube star with copyright infringement suit

Study shows women are still underrepresented among technology leaders

Read More...

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

SDNY Holds Bitcoins Fall Under Purview of Federal Money Laundering Statute

By Amanda Liverzani  Edited by Mengyi Wang

The debate surrounding the legal status of Bitcoins continued to heat up, as the Southern District of New York weighed in on whether the virtual currency could be used to launder money under 18 U.S.C. §1956(h). In a July 9, 2014 opinion penned by Judge Forrest in United States v. Ulbricht, the court held that exchanges involving Bitcoins constitute “financial transactions” for purposes of the money laundering statute, noting that “[a]ny other reading would—in light of Bitcoins’ sole raison d’etre—be nonsensical.”

Read More...

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

Aereo Struggles as Supreme Court Finds It Violated Copyright Law
By Jenny Choi – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 25, 2014, in its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against Aereo, Inc.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that Aereo violated the Copyright Act of 1976 for streaming TV shows shortly after they were broadcast without paying for the copyrighted works.  As a result, Aereo suspended its service and has struggled to find a way to re-operate its business. This decision has not come without criticism, however, as some warn this ad hoc decision could lead to uncertainty in the courts.

Read More...

ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice
By Amy Zhang – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 17, 2013)
Complaint

Photo By: DonkeyHoteyCC BY 2.0

Two weeks ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation filed a complaint against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seeking immediate processing and release of DOJ records that the ACLU had requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in late March of this year. Complaint, ACLU v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 17, 2013).

The ACLU requested information related to the use of evidence derived from surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (“FAA”).  Its complaint alleged that the DOJ had failed to process and release the requested information. In addition to the release of the requested documents, the ACLU is seeking a waiver of search, review, and reproduction fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).

Ars Technica provides background information on the lawsuit. JOLT Digest and Wired provide summaries of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, No.  11–1025 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2013), which provides the backdrop for the ACLU’s current suit. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 29 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Emma Winer

Icon-newsAmerican Dating Website Withdraws Plan to Sell User Information to Peer Canadian Site

True.com, a U.S. dating website, has called off a plan to sell user information to PlentyOfFish, a Canadian dating website, following an objection to the sale raised by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot in federal bankruptcy court. Abbott alleged that the transfer of personal user information without explicit consent violated the True.com’s privacy policy. PlentyOfFish withdrew its offer to purchase True.com’s information on October 23rd, 2013, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Third Circuit Finds Warrantless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held last Tuesday that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before employing a GPS device to track a suspect’s car, Wired reports. United States v. Katzin, No. 12-2548 (3rdCir. October 22, 2013). Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct.  945 (2012), that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court did not explicitly address whether such a search was unreasonable without a warrant. Katzin is the first appellate decision since Jones to find a warrantless GPS search unconstitutional, even if law enforcement officials acted with a good faith belief that their actions complied with the law. Ars Technica discusses the significance of the ruling in greater detail.

Sony Sues United Airlines for Copyright Infringement

Sony Music Entertainment filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against United Airlines last Tuesday. Arista Music v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 13-cv-07451-AT (S.D.N.Y filed October 22, 2013). As Law360 reports, Sony alleges that United Airlines used, without authorization, Sony songs and videos in in-flight media services provided to United Airlines by Inflight Productions Ltd. According to the complaint, United Airlines has acknowledged that the materials in question are copyrighted but has continued to use them anyway. The lawsuit seeks both damages and an injunction to enjoin use of the copyrighted works.

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
By James Grace – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, No. 12-1352 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2013)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Denial of Petition

Photo By: EnoksonCC BY 2.0

The Supreme Court denied Nokia’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, No. 12-1352 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2013), upholding the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s finding that Nokia had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. §1337 (“Section 337”), by importing into the U.S. cell phones that violated two U.S. patents owned by InterDigital. Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

In denying the petition without comment, the Supreme Court did not address Nokia’s question concerning the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) jurisdiction over the case. The Federal Circuit held that “licensing alone” could satisfy the “domestic industry” requirement of Section 337. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 12, Interdigital, 707 F.3d 1295, cert. denied, No. 12-1352. (“Petition”). Nokia had argued that InterDigital had failed to meet the “technical” prong of the domestic industry requirement because it merely licensed its patents and did not manufacture “articles protected by the patent.” Id. at 17-18.

Bloomberg.com provides an overview of the litigation and comments on the significance of the decision for Nokia, InterDigital and other technology companies. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 26 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung
By Sam Callahan – Edited by Jennifer Wong

Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. CV-06-05578SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. Filed Sept. 26, 2006)
Proposed Settlement (hosted by Wired)

Gary Fung, operator of the popular file-sharing website isoHunt.com, has agreed to pay $110 million in damages and will permanently shut down his site in order to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by six major film studios. Stipulation and Proposed Settlement, Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. 2:06-cv-05578SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal Oct. 17, 2013). The settlement comes after more than seven years of litigation with the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”), which represents the studios—Columbia Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, and Disney among others.

Claiming more than 44 million users and indexing over 13 million active BitTorrent files, isoHunt was the fourth most popular website of its kind. Other file-sharing sites operated by Fung, including the popular TorrentBox.com, will also shut down as a result of the settlement.

Prior to the recent settlement, two federal courts had ruled against Fung in the lawsuit, first brought in 2006. The United States District Court for the Central District of California found Fung liable for copyright infringement in 2009, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the relevant parts of that holding in March. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013).

The settlement was announced in an official statement from the MPAA. Wired and CNET also report on the recent settlement. A Washington Post blog comments favorably on the outcome, while Techdirt criticizes the settlement’s “bogus” damages value. Patently-O discusses the Ninth Circuit decision preceding the settlement. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 25 - 2013 1 Comment READ FULL POST

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
By Mary Schnoor – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 12-1658 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2013)
Slip opinion

On October 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that two patents owned by Intellect Wireless, Inc. (“Intellect”) are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 12-1658, 1 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2013). Intellect had claimed that HTC Corp., the Taiwanese smartphone maker, infringed patents covering technology allowing a wireless device to receive and display caller identification information. Id.

The Federal Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision, which found that Daniel Henderson, the founder of Intellect and inventor of the patents in question, intentionally submitted false statements as part of his Rule 131 declaration to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and that his actions satisfied the Therasense standard for inequitable conduct. Id. at 3. During the prosecution of the patents, Henderson made false statements to the USPTO, claiming that he had actually reduced his invention to practice and that he had demonstrated it at a meeting in 1993. Id. at 4. Although Henderson’s attorney attempted to cure this misconduct by submitting revised declarations, the court’s opinion emphasized that such efforts to cure misconduct will be unsuccessful unless they explicitly acknowledge the false declaration’s existence to the USPTO and clearly state what was false and what the actual facts are. Id. at 5-6.

IPFrontline explains the court’s ruling and the lessons it provides for patent attorneys seeking to correct false declarations.  PharmaPatents also reviews the ruling, and PatentlyO provides a brief summary. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 22 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
invisalign-braces

ITC’s review of an

ITC’s review of an ALJ’s order was not procedurally sound By ...

Photo By: mkhmarketing - CC BY 2.0

Facebook’s experim

Facebook’s experiment of emotional contagion raises concerns By Jenny Choi – ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Ken Winterbottom Access to nude photos is a ‘perk’ of ...

pic01

SDNY Holds Bitcoins

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang United States v. Ulbricht, ...

aereo_antenna_array1

Aereo Struggles as S

Aereo Struggles as Supreme Court Finds It Violated Copyright Law By ...