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...

By Paulius Jurcys

CJEU Grants “Causal Event” Jurisdiction for Online Copyright Infringement

Cruz Villalón, Advocate General (“AG”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”), delivered his Opinion in Pez Hejduk v. EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH, which dealt with the interpretation of Art. 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation and the question of jurisdiction over copyright infringements. In that case, Hejduk, an Austrian photographer, sued a German corporation for unauthorized publication of her photographs online. The German defendant contested jurisdiction, arguing that the case should have been brought before a German court. It pointed out that its place of establishment was in Germany and that its website used “.de” domain. Villalón discussed recent cases such as eDate (victim’s “centre of interests” approach) and Pinckney (localization of damage), and proposed to confer jurisdiction to the courts of the state in which the “causal event” occurred. Making content available online may cause damage in those states in which copyright is protected, but given the general/special jurisdiction dichotomy under the Brussels I Regulation (Arts. 2 and 5(3)), it remains for the Court to clarify whether ‘causal event’ jurisdiction is not too narrow for online copyright infringement cases under Art. 5(3).

Creators of the Blue-LED Technology Receive Nobel Prize

On October 7th, 2014, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced its decision to award the Nobel Prize in Physics to three Japanese scientists for inventing energy-saving LED lights, which “triggered a fundamental transformation of lighting technology.” One of the inventors, Shuji Nakamura, had sued his former employer, Nichia Corporation, four years ago after Nichia gave him an award of $200 for his invention. The meager compensation reflected the long-held notion in Japanese culture that employees should sacrifice for their companies. Nakamura’s battle with Nichia and settlement for $8 million was an important turning point for strengthening employees’ rights as well as for motivating workers  to design innovative products.

California Enacts Open Access Legislation

California has become one of the first jurisdictions to enact Taxpayer Access to Publicly Funded Research Act on September 29, 2014. Prior to enactment, state agencies and departments were only required to share the results of research conducted by state employees. The new law further requires the recipient of state funding to provide public access to any publication, invention or technology on a government-approved and freely accessible database.

Posted On Oct - 14 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

pic01By: Chris Crawford and Joshua Vittor

This article assumes a base level of knowledge about Bitcoin, bitcoin (BTC), blockchain technology, the Silk Road seizure, and the collapse of MtGox. For a helpful summary of how this technology works, see the first portion of this articlewritten by Matthew Ly of the Journal of Law and Technology.

Bitcoin, and crypto-currency more generally, has risen in the five years since its launch from an academic exercise to what is today a multi-billion dollar system of transacting wealth. Its signature technology is the blockchain, a nearly incorruptible public ledger that replaces many functions traditionally left to trusted intermediaries, such as transaction verification. These trusted intermediaries, like banks and wire transmitters, are highly regulated under our current legal system. The threat of government enforcement or private litigation is meant to ensure that they operate fairly and legally and to provide relief for victims when the intermediaries breach those victims’ trusts.

Bitcoin enthusiasts, however, emphasize that trusted intermediaries often do not operate fairly or legally (e.g. they run off with the money), and that the legal system’s reactive nature is an insufficient deterrent against malpractice and wrongdoing. Blockchain technology, some claim, has the potential to ensure proper transactions in a way that the traditional legal system has never been capable of. With blockchains, so the argument goes, there will be no need for a legal system (including government regulations) to guarantee the success of a transaction because there will be no need for trusted intermediaries to complete a transaction. (more…)

Posted On Sep - 10 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written by: Michelle Sohn

Edited by: Olga Slobodyanyuk

Emulsion: A mixture of two or more liquids that are normally immiscible (nonmixable or unblendable).

-Wikipedia

 I.               UberX D.C. as Case Study in the Local Sharing Economy

If states are laboratories of democracy, then cities are the experiments. A new experiment has bubbled up in cities across the world, reaching a boiling point. The experiment? The local sharing economy. In May, amidst accusations that many of its users were violating New York’s illegal hotels law, Airbnb agreed to release redacted user data to New York’s Attorney General. In early June, the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicle Services issued cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft, ride-on-demand mobile app services. Weeks later, taxicabs caravanned into Washington, D.C. in protest, bringing traffic to a standstill. They demanded that the D.C. City Council also issue cease-and-desist letters. While Virginia has since lifted the ban on Uber and Lyft, other states and cities have continued to fight.

Heretofore, much of the debate has centered around two competing narratives: According to some, the Uber story (and more broadly, the local sharing economy story) is one that pits ham-handed regulation against innovation, protecting entrenched and outmoded industries. Others argue that the case against Uber is fair, and that to compete all services should play by the same rules. While politics and fears of disruption certainly play large roles in this regulatory drama, this comment points to a larger legal controversy at work—the increased emulsification of commercial and private uses. Although the focus of this comment is on Uber and D.C., the larger goal is to identify major regulatory tensions with the local sharing economy by examining actual and proposed municipal regulations and laws. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 31 - 2014 1 Comment READ FULL POST

By Olga Slobodyanyuk

ICANN responds to terrorism victims by claiming domain names are not property

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) has asked a D.C. Circuit Court to prevent the handover of country code top-level domain names (“ccTLD”) to plaintiffs of Ben Haim et al. v Islamic Republic of Iran et al., who have been trying to collect their $109 million damages award from Iran for the 1997 suicide bombing. The plaintiffs have had limited success with seizing Iranian assets located in the U.S., including cultural artifacts held by Harvard University and Chicago’s Field Museum, reports Arstechnica. They have recently obtained writs of attachment against ICANN, ordering it to “hold” the ccTLDs of Iran, Syria and North Korea for seizure, liquidation or transfer. According to the Volokh Conspiracy, ICANN has responded in its motion to quash these writs by claiming that “a ccTLD is not ‘property’; even if you think its property, it’s not property ‘belonging to’ the defendant governments; even if you think it’s property belonging to the defendant governments, it’s not within ICANN’s control; and even if you think it’s property belonging to the defendant governments that is within ICANN’s control, it’s not ‘located in the United States’ and therefore not subject to seizure by a U.S. federal court.” The Volokh Conspiracy notes that, although a ccTLD is like a label to a series of interlocking relationships, the theory that domain names are property has been successfully used by the Department of Homeland Security to seize websites allegedly involved in copyright infringement.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 6 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang

Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc., 2013-1600, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1606, -1607, -1608, -1609, -1610, -1611, -1612, -1613, -1614, -1615,  -1616, -1617, -1618 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014) 

Slip Opinion

In Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics For Imaging, Inc., the Federal Circuit embraced the opportunity to apply the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding the patentability of abstract ideas in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___, No. 13-298 (June 19, 2014) to resolve a question of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. Digitech Image Technologies (“Digitech”) filed infringement suits against 32 defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of a patent “directed to the generation and use of an ‘improved device profile’ that describes spatial and color properties of a device within a digital image processing system.” 2013-1600, -1601, -1602, -1603, -1604, -1605, -1606, -1607, -1608, -1609, -1610, -1611, -1612, -1613, -1614, -1615,  -1616, -1617, -1618 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2014). Slip op. at 56. Several defendants filed for summary judgment on the basis that the asserted claims of the Patent-in-SuitU.S. Patent No. 6,128,415 (“the ‘415 patent”)were invalid under Section 101. Id. at 6. The district court granted the motions, finding that the claims were subject matter ineligible. Id.

The ‘415 patent claims a “device profile” and a method for creating an improved device profile for use in digital imaging. Id. at 4. A digital image is typically captured by a “source device,” like a digital camera, and then transferred to an “output device,” like a monitor or printer. Id at 5. In the transfer process the image is distorted because of the differences in information, such as color ranges, stored by the source device and readable by the output device. Id. The ‘415 patent proposed a “device independent solution” to the distortion issue through the generation of device profiles containing information about both source and output devices. Id. Unlike prior art which only described device profiles covering color ranges, the ‘415 patent discloses device profiles consisting of color ranges and spatial properties. Id. at 56.

On appeal, Digitech argued that the district court erred in finding that the device profile claim was “directed to a collection of data that lacks tangible or physical properties” and that the method claims “encompass an abstract idea.” Id. at 6. The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments by Digitech, affirming the district court’s decision in an opinion authored by Circuit Judge Reyna. Id. at 7.

(more…)

Posted On Aug - 5 - 2014 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 ...