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

Silk Road 2.0 Takedown Indicates Law Enforcement May Have Developed a Method to Trace Hidden Tor Websites

By Steven Wilfong — Edited by Travis West

The complaint filed against Blake Benthall, the alleged operator of Silk Road 2.0, indicates that the FBI identified a server that was used to host the popular drug market website, despite the fact that the website’s location was hidden by the Tor anonymity software.  Law enforcement may have developed a method of compromising Tor anonymity, a possibility that would prove useful in future operations, but that also raises concerns for legitimate users.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ken Winterbottom

Motion to Dismiss in Hulu Patent Infringement Suit Affirmed

“Virtual Classroom” Patent Infringement Case Remanded for Further Determination

Attorney Publicly Reprimanded for Circulating Email from Judge

Read More...

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

Spain Passes a “Google Tax,” Analysts Predict it Will be Short-Lived

By Michael Shammas — Edited by Yixuan Long

Spain recently amended its Intellectual Property Law and Code of Civil Procedure to levy fees on aggregators that collect snippets of other webpages. It is at least the third example of a European government fining search aggregators to support traditional print publishing industries, a practice often labeled a “Google tax” because of the disproportionate impact such laws have on the search giant. Some analysts are already predicting that Spain’s new law will fail.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Tightens Patent Standing Requirement in Azure Networks

By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Sabreena Khalid

In Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that patent owners who had licensed “all substantial rights” to a third party could not be joined as plaintiffs in a suit on that patent. The court also reaffirmed the high bar to proving that a patentee has redefined a well-understood technical term.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Russia’s Intellectual Property Court affirms denial of Ford’s trademark application

Contrary to its advertising efforts, Red Bull does not give you wings

Federal Court rules that food flavors are not trademarkable

Read More...

By Michael Shammas

High-Profile Patent Attorney Edward Reines Publically Reprimanded by Federal Circuit for Sharing Email Including Former Chief Judge Randall Rader’s Effusive Praise

Following a high-profile scandal in which US Circuit Judge Randall Rader stepped down for an “ethical breach” in which he emailed effusive praise to an attorney who appeared frequently before his court, the Federal Circuit issued an order publically reprimanding the compliments’ recipient for disseminating Rader’s email to prospective clients. The email read, in part, “You were alone and IMPRESSIVE in every way. In both cases, you knew the record cold and handled every question with confidence and grace.” Reines told clients that such praise was “quite unusual,” which the Federal Circuit interpreted as implying an improper relationship with a Federal Circuit judge. Because of a spotless past, discipline was limited to the public reprimand.

Federal Circuit Affirms Court of International Trade’s Decision in a Loss for Victoria’s Secret, in Case Where the Level of “Coverage” and “Support” Offered by Intimate Apparel Proved Key

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed the Court of International Trade’s decision holding that the proper classification for one line of the company’s cotton tops is under 6114.20.00 as “other garments.” CAFC reasoned that the intimate apparel has two purposes, “coverage and support,” and that it cannot be classified as a brassiere because it can be worn in public. Victoria’s Secret brought the litigation because it disagree with Customs and Border Protection’s decision to classify the cotton garments as “tank tops” with a 16.5 percent duty. CAFC’s affirmation of the Court of International Trade decision is a middle of the road approach.

Fee-Shifting Reversed in AntiCancer, Inc. v. Pfizer (Fed. Cir. 2014), as Contentious Legal Battle Expected to Continue

AntiCancer, Inc. owns patents for technology linked to gene expression imaging using a green fluorescent protein related to a gene promoter. The protein comes from Aequorea victoria, a species of green-glowing jellyfish, and the patented inventions are thought to be useful for, among other things, cancer treatment. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement on a procedural aspect, then imposed a fee-shifting sanction as a condition of permitting AntiCancer, Inc. to supplement the Preliminary Infringement Contentions and overcome summary judgment. On Oct. 20, the Federal Circuit vacated the condition and remanded the case, finding that there was no reasonable basis for the finding of bad faith required to sustain the fee-shifting sanction.

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Mengyi Wang

Medicine Co. v. Mylan, No. 1:11-cv-01285 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 27, 2014)

Prescription Medication Spilling From an Open Medicine BottleOn October 27, the U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois ruled that Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”), one of the biggest generic firm, infringed Medicine Co.’s No. 7,582,727 Patent (“the ‘727 Patent”).. In so holding, the court rejected Mylan’s invalidity and inequitable conduct contentions concerning the ‘727 Patent. The court held that Mylan infringed the ‘727 Patent under the “hypothetical” inquiry of infringement since Mylan’s ANDA application has not yet approved, and the infringement act has not yet occurred.

An overview of the case can be found here. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Steve Wilfong

Pricing and Contract Negotiations within United States not Sufficient to Constitute “Sale Within” the United States

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 13-1472 (Fed. Cir. October 22, 2014), affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Nevada’s ruling that Pulse did not directly infringe three of Halo’s patents related to surface mount electronic packages (U.S. Patents #5,656,985, 6,297,720, and 6,344,785), because the accused products were not sold, shipped, manufactured or delivered within the United States.  Halo at 2.  Halo argued that because negotiations and demand projections between Pulse and a buyer occurred in the United States, the accused products were “sold within” the United States as defined in Section 271(a) of the patent statute.  Id. at 9.  The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, holding that pricing and contract negotiations do not constitute a sale within the United States “when substantial activities of [the] sales transaction, including the final formation of a contract for sale . . . [and] delivery and performance under that sales contract, occur entirely outside the United States.”   Id. at 12.  The Federal Circuit stated that the “presumption against extraterritorial application of United States laws” supports this decision.  Id. at 13.  The Federal Circuit also concluded that the fact that Halo suffered economic harm from Pulse’s actions was not sufficient to establish infringement, id. at 14, and upheld the District Court’s judgment that Pulse’s infringement was not willful, id. at 19.  Law360 provides a discussion of the ruling.

Examining Electronic Passports Does Not Constitute Infringement

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Iris Corporation v. Japan Airline Corporation, 10-1051 (Fed. Cir. October 21, 2014), affirmed the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s ruling that Japan Airlines Corporation did not infringe Iris Corporation’s patent on secure identification document production (U.S. Patent #6,111,506).  Iris at 2.  Iris argued that Japan Airlines examines passports that are made using methods claimed in the patent, and that this process constitutes patent infringement.  Id. at 3. The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, affirming the District Court’s finding that the infringing acts are carried out “for the United States” as described in 28 U.S.C. §1498(a), and that as a result Iris’s only remedy would be an “action against the United States.”  Id. at 4, citing 28 U.S.C. §1498(a).  The court concluded that Japan Airlines’ passport examination was both “conducted ‘for the government’” and “conducted ‘with the authorization or consent of the government,” and that as a result the United States had assumed liability for the infringing activities.  Id.  In support of this conclusion, the court stated that Japan Airlines could not comply with United States laws without examining passports, id., and that the actions benefited the government by improving national security, id. at 5-6.

Divided Court of Appeals Denies Bristol-Myers Rehearing Petition 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 13-1306 (Fed. Cir. October 20, 2014), denied Bristol-Myers’ combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.  Bristol-Myers at 3.  The panel held that a Bristol-Myers patent for a compound used to treat hepatitis B was invalid due to obviousness, because it was based on a prior-art compound.  Id. at 2 (Taranto, dissenting).  The panel concluded that the fact that the prior-art compound was found to be toxic after Bristol-Myers filed their patent should not influence the finding of obviousness.  Id.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the panel’s position, holding that the toxic nature of the prior compound should not be considered in this case under 35 U.S.C. §103, because “an invention is not patentable if it ‘would have been obvious before the effective filing date . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”  Id. at 1 (Dyk, concurring), citing 35 U.S.C. §103 (emphasis in original).  The opinion included two dissents, which raised concerns that the majority’s ruling would make the process of establishing patentability of new products unduly difficult.  See, e.g., id. at 3 (Newman, dissenting).  Law360 provides an in-depth discussion of the ruling.

Posted On Nov - 5 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By: Olga Slobodyanyuk, Edited by: Saukshmya Trichi

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 15-cv-1543 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2014) Opinion and Order hosted by National Association of Broadcasters.

aereo_antenna_array1On October 23, the SDNY District Court granted a preliminary injunction restraining Aereo from retransmitting Live TV programs. In doing so, the Court rejected Aereo’s claim that it offers a cable TV service thus being entitled to a compulsory license for the copyrighted programs. By virtue of the injunction  Aereo is prohibited from “streaming, transmitting, retransmitting, or otherwise publicly performing any Copyrighted Program over the Internet (through websites such as aereo.com), or by means of any device or process throughout the United States of America, while the Copyrighted Programming is still being broadcast.”

Aereo is a tech start-up which offered  live and time-shifted streams of TV shows over the Internet through tiny remote antennas that captured TV signals upon the subscribers’ requests. In June, the Supreme Court held that Aereo’s service of streaming TV shows amounts to  a public performance under the ‘Transmit Clause’ of the Copyright Act. American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. 134 S.Ct. 2498 (Supreme Court of the United States, June 25, 2014) Slip Opinion. Digest report of the case for further details. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 4 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Ariane Moss

Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Apple over MacBook Pro GPU Issues

Owners of 15-inch and 17-inch 2011 Series MacBook Pro might finally get compensated for their GPU-related malfunctions. The law firm of Whitfield, Bryson & Mason filed a complaint in a California federal court against Apple on behalf of California and Florida residents who purchased the 2011 MacBook Pro with AMD graphics, although they are considering extending this suit beyond the jurisdictions of California and Florida. The complaint describes the problem as “graphics becoming distorted, followed by software shutdowns, system freezes and, eventually, total system failure” and alleges that Apple has failed to reimburse customers who were forced to pay for repairs costing between $350 to $600 to fix. The complaint also accuses Apple of ignoring customers who have complained including those who attempted to directly contact CEO Tim Cook.

Spain Enacts “Google Tax” Anti-Piracy Law

Spain passed a new copyright law requiring Google to pay newspaper publishers for using their news content or face a fine of up to 600,000 euro. Spain will also require removal of all copyright infringing material from websites if the websites themselves don’t profit from the infringement. European publishers accuse search firms of using their copyrighted material to build news services without doing any original reporting, whereas Google defends itself by claiming that it directs billions of views to newspapers’ websites every month. Germany recently passed a similar law which resulted in Google’s completely removing affected newspapers from their site, but publishers eventually requested to be relisted after suffering from huge traffic drops. The law passed with heavy resistance from the opposing party who regard the legislation as a misguided effort.

Virginia Police Can Demand Fingerprint Passcodes

A Virginia Circuit Court judge ruled that requiring a suspect to unlock a phone with a fingerprint is not unconstitutional, although requiring a password to unlock is unconstitutional. This case involves a man charged with assaulting his girlfriend and prosecutors who believed his phone contained video of the conflict. Although the judge agreed with the defense counsel which argued that passcodes are protected by the Fifth Amendment, he decided fingerprints are more similar to providing DNA which the law permits and less like a password which requires the defendant to divulge knowledge. The court pointed out the legal difference between a person’s knowledgeprotected under the Fifth Amendmentand identity.

Posted On Nov - 4 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY 2.0

Silk Road 2.0 Takedo

  [caption id="attachment_4363" align="alignleft" width="150"] Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY ...

Unknown

Federal Circuit Flas

By Ken Winterbottom Motion to Dismiss in Hulu Patent Infringement Suit ...

GOOGLE_APTHDVR_1268416f

Spain Passes a “Go

By Michael Shammas — Edited by Yixuan Long Amendments to the ...

radio-wireless-tower-clip-art_resized

Federal Circuit Tigh

By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Sabreena Khalid Azure Networks, LLC ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Russia’s Intellectual Property Court affirms denial of Ford's ...