JOLT Digest

Ninth Circuit Creates Circuit Split by Narrowly Construing the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
By Abby Lauer – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

United States v. Nosal, No. 10-10038 (9th Cir. April 10, 2012)
Slip Opinion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California in an en banc decision construing the scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”). The court held that a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.

The Ninth Circuit held that the provision of the CFAA that prohibits a person from “exceed[ing] authorized access” to information on the Internet does not extend to violations of use restrictions, such as an employer’s computer use policy or a website’s terms of service. In so holding, the court applied the rule of lenity to this provision of the CFAA. The court expressed concern that adopting a broader interpretation of “exceeds authorized access,” which appears five times in the first seven subsections of the statute, would inadvertently criminalize innocuous activity that was not intended to be captured. For example, the court noted that “lying on social media websites is common,” and concluded this is not the type of behavior that Congress intended to punish by passing the CFAA.

Ars Technica provides an overview of the case. The Volokh Conspiracy provides further commentary and excerpts from Chief Judge Kozinski’s majority opinion. (more…)

Written by Kassity Liu
Edited by Andrew Segna
Editorial Policy

Social media has taken our society by storm. From Facebook to Twitter to LinkedIn, social media has provided individuals with newer and faster ways to communicate with one another. In 2011, eBizMBA estimated that 700 million unique users visited Facebook per month, 200 million users visited Twitter, and 100 million users visited LinkedIn. These statistics are staggering. The entire population of the United States, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau, only totals 312 million.[i]

With the growing use of social media, many businesses in the U.S. have started to use social media as a method of advertising their products to consumers. Large conglomerates such as General Electric and Procter & Gamble have incorporated social media into their advertising and promotional efforts.[ii] Companies including AT&T and Dell have used Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube to communicate with consumers and market their products.[iii] In 2010, Facebook boasted that over 1.5 million local businesses had active Facebook pages.

However, unlike these companies, pharmaceutical companies have taken a cautious approach to social media. In 2008, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry only allocated a “tiny fraction” of “less than 4% of the more than $4 billion it spent on direct-to-consumer advertising” on social media advertising.[iv] Unlike advertising in other industries, prescription drug advertising is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This means that drug companies are only allowed to advertise their products under a regulatory scheme that is set up by the FDA. Although some venturous drug companies have chosen to invest their dollars in social media advertising before the FDA provides the industry with clear guidance, many have been waiting for the agency to publish a guidance document on social media advertising.

With respect to social media, the FDA has only published a draft guidance on “responding to unsolicited requests for off-label information about prescription drugs and medical devices.” The fifteen-page document addresses how companies should respond to online inquiries about off-label uses of their products, but does not provide clear instructions to the industry about how to advertise their products using social media. Despite not having clear guidelines on the use of social media, pharmaceutical companies need to start exploring this evolving area of technology. Working within the current regulatory scheme, the pharmaceutical industry can use social media not only for the industry’s own benefit but also for the benefit of drug users and the medical community. Moreover, even if pharmaceutical companies choose to avoid using social media, this would not stop physicians and patients from sharing information about the companies’ products online. Therefore, in order to effectively monitor and convey reliable information about their products to consumers, companies may have to learn how to use social media sooner or later.  (more…)

Fourth Circuit Holds Google’s Keyword Advertising May Infringe Trademark
By Michael Hoven – Edited by Abby Lauer

Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-2007 (4th Cir. Apr. 9, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to the Eastern District of Virginia, which had granted Google summary judgment in holding that Google was not liable on all trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims brought by plaintiff Rosetta Stone in 2009.

The Fourth Circuit held that a reasonable trier of fact could find Google liable for direct infringement, contributory infringement, or dilution of trademark by allowing advertisers to bid on the trademarks of third parties. The court flatly rejected Google’s functionality defense, while affirming summary judgment for Google on vicarious infringement and affirming the dismissal of Rosetta Stone’s unjust enrichment claim. The court restored the direct infringement claim because there was a question of fact about consumer confusion. On the contributory infringement claim, the court concluded that there was a question of fact as to whether Google continued to sell keywords to advertisers it knew were engaging in trademark infringement. In so holding, the court stated that the district court had applied the wrong standard of review for summary judgment but said little about the lawfulness of keyword advertising.

MSNBC.com provides an overview of the case. On the Technology & Marketing Law Blog, Eric Goldman criticized the decision for ignoring the policy interests at stake and delaying an “inevitable” consensus that keyword advertising does not violate trademark law. (more…)

Federal Circuit Declares Pharmaceutical Patents Unenforceable for Inequitable Conduct
By Laura Fishwick – Edited by Jennifer Wong

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., No. 2011-1018, 2012 WL 1155716 (Fed. Cir. April 9, 2012).
Slip Opinion

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware‘s holding that claim 5 of Aventis Pharma’s U.S. Patent No. 5,750,561 (filed August 4, 1993) (“the ‘561 patent”) and claim 7 of its U.S. Patent No. 5,714,512 (filed August 23, 1993) (“the ‘512 patent”) were invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and unenforceable on inequitable conduct grounds. Reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its ultimate finding of inequitable conduct for abuse of discretion, the Federal Circuit found that both patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct, because the defendants had met their burden of showing that the withheld references were material to patentability and that the applicant intended to deceive the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), primarily relying on testimony by the patents’ inventor.

PharmaPatents provides an overview of the case. Patents4Life suggests that the case may have come out differently had the inventor “professed to have no recollection” of the events which happened twenty years ago. Bloomberg Businessweek discussed the financial impact of generic drug manufacturers on Sanofi. (more…)

Second Circuit Ruling Leaves Open Possibility That YouTube Is Not Protected By Safe Harbor
By Jacob Rogers – Edited by Julie Dorais

Viacom Int’l, Inc., Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc., Docket No. 10-3270-cv (2nd Cir. April 5, 2012)
Slip Opinion

The Second Circuit partially affirmed and partially reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, granting summary judgment to YouTube on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement brought by Viacom. The district court held that YouTube qualified for safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c), which protects service providers from liability for acts of infringement by users.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that §512(c)(1)(A)’s exception to the safe harbor provision “requires knowledge or awareness of specific facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of infringement,” but it vacated the district court’s summary judgment order because certain internal emails within YouTube raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether it had such knowledge. The court also held that the “right and ability to control” an infringer under §512(c)(1)(B), which also creates an exception to the safe harbor provision, does not require knowledge of specific acts of infringement but requires more than vicarious liability at common law. It additionally held that willful blindness may be relevant to determinations under §512(c)(1)(A), although it is limited by the congressional mandate that safe harbor for service providers not be conditioned on monitoring. See §512(m). The court accordingly remanded the case for the district court to apply this “right and ability to control test” and address the issue of willful blindness in the first instance.

The Technology and Marketing Blog provides an overview of the case, noting that, regardless of the specific decision of the district court on remand, this decision is likely to raise litigation costs for all digital content providers seeking safe harbor under the DMCA. The New York Times Media Decoder Blog suggests that the suit has no winners, as both sides expressed lukewarm sentiments at the result and Viacom is currently pursuing a business partnership with YouTube simultaneously with this litigation. (more…)