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

By Alex Noonan – Edited by Filippo Raso

California Supreme Court to Determine if Courts Can Require Non-Party Content Hosts to Remove Defamatory Reviews


Half of American Adults are in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Databases


Californian Residents Whose Data Were Exposed in Yahoo Data Breach to Bring Class Action Suit in California State Court




By June Nam – Edited by Ding Ding

The heirs of William Abbott and Lou Costello filed suit against the creators of a Broadway play, Hand to God for using—verbatim—a portion of the iconic comedy routine, Who’s on First?. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment but rejected the reasoning of the district court, which dismissed allegations of copyright infringement. The Circuit Judge, Reena Raggi, held that the use of the routine in the play was not a fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. However, the heirs did not have a valid copyright to allege any copyright infringement.



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.


By Anne Woodworth

Report Claims Facebook Privacy Policy in Violation of EU Law

A report by the Centre of Interdisciplinary Law and ICT in Belgium claims that Facebook’s January privacy policy update remains in violation of European consumer protection law.  The authors stated that collection of device information such as location data defies article 5(3) of the EU e-Privacy Directive, requiring “free and informed prior consent before storing or accessing information on an individual’s device.”  The report criticized Facebook for not allowing users to control their appearance in “sponsored stories” and highlighted the inability of users to opt out of location sharing on the app without going through their mobile operating system.  Facebook responded that it’s updated terms and policies expand user control over advertising and comply with EU laws.

FCC Preempts State Laws Limiting City-Provided Internet Service

In a 3-2 vote, the FCC overrode state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that make it difficult for cities to provide internet service independently.  The move is likely to provoke litigation over limits on Federal Power.  In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League that Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act did not allow for state preemption in a case concerning the blocking of municipal broadband service.  The FCC Chairman said the current action is allowable under Section 706 which mandates the blocking of growth barriers in the broadband market.

Aereo Files Repayment Plan Following Bankruptcy Auction

Last week, eight months after the Supreme Court declared Aereo Inc.’s television streaming business illegal, the company auctioned off intellectual property, technology and other assets for a total of $1.55 million, a much smaller sum than expected.  It’s trademarks, domain names and customer list sold to TiVo for $1 million.  On Friday February 27, the company laid out its plan to repay creditors.  The auction sale is set to be approved in a March 11 hearing, and Aereo hopes to have the repayment plan confirmed by creditors in May.

Posted On Mar - 5 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Amanda Liverzani

UnknownPTO’s Statutory Interpretation on Patent Term Adjustment Upheld 

In Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Michelle Lee, the Federal Circuit upheld the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) interpretation of a statute addressing the type of applicant conduct factored into a Patent Term Adjustment (“PTA”). 2014-1159 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2015), slip op. at 16. Gilead argued that the PTO’s PTA calculation for U.S. Patent No. 8,148,374 was based on an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of § 154(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Patent Act, which states that a PTA for delay caused by the PTO is to be offset by the time “the applicant failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution of the application.” Id. at 8 (quoting § 154(b)(2)(C)).  The court rejected Gilead’s argument that, contrary to the PTO’s interpretation, the statute should be read only to include applicant conduct that actually delays prosecution.  Applying the Chevron two-step framework, the court concluded that the PTO’s interpretation was entitled to deference because Congress did not specifically address whether an applicant’s failure to engage in reasonable efforts need actually cause delay, id. at 13, and that the PTO’s interpretation was permissible given the broad language of the statute, id. at 13-14. A timeline of the relevant patent prosecution and further explanation of the court’s decision are available at PatentlyO.


Federal Circuit Affirms Garmin Fitness Watches Do Not Infringe on Pacing Patent

The Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision that Garmin’s GPS fitness watches do not infringe on a patent held by Pacing Technologies in Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc., 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2015). The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,101,843 (“the ‘843 patent”), claims a method for pacing users during activities like running or cycling “by providing the user with a tempo . . . corresponding to the user’s desired pace.” Slip op. at 2.  On appeal, the court considered whether the patent claims were limited to devices that convey pace to the user through a play back mechanism such as a song or flashing lights. Id. at 4.  The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s finding that claims of the ‘843 patent were limited to devices with play back features, id. at 5, and subsequently held that Garmin’s fitness watches did not infringe on Pacing Technologies’ patent, id. at 10. For additional commentary see Law360, the National Law Review, and PatentlyO.


Online Shopping Cart Patents Deemed Invalid in Infringement Action Against Victoria’s Secret and Avon

 Soverain Software’s patent claims directed to online shopping carts were found invalid due to issue preclusion by the Federal Circuit, reversing the decision of the Eastern District of Texas in an infringement action against Victoria’s Secret and Avon. Soverain Software LLC v. Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC, Avon Products, Inc., 2012-1649, 2012-1650 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2015), slip op. at 2. The patents involved in the case, U.S. Patent No. 5,715,314 and U.S. Patent No. 5,909,492, were previously found invalid by the Federal Circuit in Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., 705 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Id. The court rejected Soverain’s argument that issue preclusion should not apply in the instant action because Soverain did not have full and fair opportunity to litigate. Id. at 6-14.  Further coverage of the decision and related litigation involving shopping cart patents is available at Ars Technica, IPWatchdog, and Law360.


Posted On Mar - 2 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Katherine Kwong  

U.S. v. Ulbricht, No. 13-06919 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2015)

FBI Press Release
UnknownOn February 4, a federal jury in Manhattan rendered its verdict in the trial against Ross Ulbricht, a 30-year-old U.S. citizen allegedly in charge of the online black market platform Silk Road. The jury found Mr. Ulbricht guilty on all charges. The case is important as it represents an attempt by the government to regain control over an area of the internet where tools such as bitcoin and Tor are used to create an online space beyond the reach of the authorities.

A summary of the case is provided by Ars Technica, Forbes, and Reuters. Wired provides an in-depth analysis of the decision. Details on the course of the trial can be found at Forbes and Forbes. (more…)

Posted On Mar - 2 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written by: Asher Lowenstein

Edited by: Yaping Zhang

In May 2014, another proposed bill to address abusive practices of patent assertion entities (PAEs), also known as “patent trolls,” came to an end. Senator Patrick Leahy, a sponsor of the bill, said he hoped “to return to the issue this year” because “[w]e can all agree that patent trolls abuse the current patent system.” In an interview, Senator Leahy blamed the bill’s failure on special interests that do not want to protect people from trolls.

There have been extensive legislative efforts to counter abusive patent litigation. According to Intellectual Property Ownership AssociationIntellectual Property Ownership Association, thirteen bills were introduced in Congress between May 2013 and February 2014. Certain PAEs have engaged in particularly obnoxious practices that appear to have motivated some of the legislative efforts.

In particular, provisions aimed at “bad-faith demand letters” are directed against practices exemplified by MPHJ Technology. According to the NY Attorney General’s office, in 2012 MPHJ purchased four patents and one patent application for one dollar. MPHJ began sending letters in September 2012 to businesses in all fifty states with fewer than one hundred employees. See Ex. F at 6, MPHJ Tech. Invs., LLC v. FTC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146288, No. 6:14-cv-11 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2014). Approximately 16,645 businesses received the letter, which stated that the recipient was likely infringing MPHJ patents by using a machine that could send a scan to email. The letters alleged that “many companies” had agreed to pay a fair price, which was usually between $900 and $1,200 per employee.


Posted On Dec - 22 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Yaping Zhang

3D Systems, Inc., v. Formlabs, Inc., No. 13-cv-07973-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2014) (order granting dismissal with prejudice) Slip Opinion hosted by Scribd.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages, 3D Systems, Inc., v. Formlabs, Inc., No. 0:12-cv-03323-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2012) Complaint hosted by Archive.org.

On December 1, 3D Systems and Formlabs agreed to settle their two-year legal dispute over patent infringement. Terms of the settlement are undisclosed. 3D Systems sued Formlabs in 2012 for infringement of No. 5,597,520 Patent (“the ‘520 Patent”), granted to 3D Systems in 1997. 3D Systems at *5. The patent covered different parts of the stereolithographic three-dimensional printing process, which uses a laser to cure liquid plastic. Id. 5–11. The patent will have expired in 2017.

TechCrunch and Boston Business Journal overview the settlement. Gigaom analyzes its background and impact.


Posted On Dec - 21 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Flash Digest: News i

By Alex Noonan – Edited by Filippo Raso California Supreme Court ...


Second Circuit Holds

June Nam - Edited by Ding Ding TCA Television Corp. v. ...

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 ...