Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on GPS Tracking Case
By Amara Osisioma – Edited by Andrew Crocker

U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259 (2011)
Transcript of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, November 8th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements. Though the police initially obtained a warrant for the investigation, it had expired when they placed the GPS on Jones’ car. Under the standard first developed in Katz. v. United States, Fourth Amendment protection extends to an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In applying this standard, the Court must determine whether and how warrantless GPS tracking differs from police tailing an individual by sight in public, which is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, on behalf of the government, argued that regardless of the method used, police tracking of individuals in public places is constitutional. Yet, despite questioning from several justices suggesting that use of a GPS might constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, Jones’ attorney, Stephen Leckar, instead tried to propose a narrow rule that the installation of the GPS was itself a search or seizure requiring a warrant.

Commentaries by the Center for Democracy & Technology and Professor Orin Kerr for The Volokh Conspiracy highlight the justices’ discomfort with the idea that evolving technology might render current constitutional protections insufficient, a scenario they repeatedly compared to George Orwell’s 1984. At the same time, SCOTUSblog notes that both parties’ inability at oral argument to suggest clear rules for guiding law enforcement’s use of surveillance technology frustrated the justices, leaving the outcome uncertain. The Wall Street Journal suggests that even a decision by the Court requiring a warrant in order to use a GPS tracking device may not change the limits of police surveillance because law enforcement authorities in most states can instead request access to a customer’s cell phone records for tracking purposes without a warrant and without the customer’s knowledge.

(more…)

By Jennifer Wong

Twitter Ordered to Release Information in WikiLeaks Case

Federal Circuit Continues to Evade Addressing Intra-Circuit Split Regarding Claim Construction
By Katie Cohen – Edited by Albert Wang

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc of Retractable Technologies, Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company.

Notably, there were two dissents filed in the court’s decision. Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, expressed frustration that, despite claim construction’s critical role in patent litigation, the Federal Circuit applies its rules in this area unpredictably. Judge Moore would have reheard this case to address the role of the specification in construing claims. In a separate dissent, Judge O’Malley urged that rehearing en banc should have been granted to revisit and reverse the court’s decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), which held that claim construction is a matter of law reviewed without deference to a district court’s conclusions.

Patent Docs provides an overview of the case. IPWatchdog and PatentlyO outline the nature of the court’s split on claim construction issues.  (more…)

Third Circuit Affirms Prior Decision to Strike Down FCC Fine for CBS Broadcast of Janet Jackson’s Breast During Super Bowl Halftime Show
By Abby Lauer – Edited by Albert Wang

CBS Corp. v. FCC, No. 06-3575 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier decision throwing out a $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on broadcasting corporation CBS for airing a split-second image of Janet Jackson’s exposed breast during the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show.

Reaching the same conclusion as it had in a 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit held that CBS’s broadcast was legal under the FCC’s policy at the time, which permitted networks to air instances of “fleeting” indecency without being sanctioned. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was arbitrary and capricious for the FCC to change its policy retroactively and impose a steep fine on CBS without notifying the network of the policy change. In reaffirming its 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit declined to change its position in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009), which upheld the FCC’s decision to abandon its safe harbor for broadcasted expletives that are not repeated. The Third Circuit stated that “Fox confirms our previous ruling in this case and that we should readopt our earlier analysis and holding that the [FCC] acted arbitrarily . . . .” Slip op. at 5.

SCOTUSblog provides an overview of the case. Ars Technica also describes the decision and discusses possible implications for future prime time broadcasts.

(more…)

By Michael Hoven

Zediva Closes Permanently, Pays $1.8 Million in Settlement

The streaming movie service Zediva has agreed to shut down permanently and pay $1.8 million to settle its lawsuit with Hollywood studios, Wired reports. (The MPAA is hosting the consent decree from the Central District Court of California.) The studios sued Zediva in April, one month after it launched its service. Zediva let users watch movies online by remotely renting and operating DVDs and DVD players owned and stored by Zediva. Zediva argued that because it rented DVDs to only one customer at a time, it operated like a video rental store and did not need to have licensing agreements with studios. As JOLT Digest previously reported, this argument did not stop the district court from issuing a preliminary injunction against Zediva in August. PCMag.com reports that the MPAA applauded the “strong message” Zediva’s shutdown sent to potential infringers and considered the shutdown a victory for the film industry.

Power Rangers Halloween Costumes Lead to Lawsuit

Owners of the intellectual property rights associated with the Power Rangers television series have sued the operators of a website for selling the Power Rangers’ colorful uniforms as Halloween costumes, according to The Hollywood Reporter. SBC Power Rangers LLC alleges that the costumes sold at MyPartyShirt.com (operated by Underdog Endeavors) infringe its copyrights and trademarks. Though clothing is not eligible for copyright because of its utilitarian function, “individual design elements” may be copyrightable. The Celebrity Justice blog at Findlaw says that while the patterns on the Power Rangers costumes could be protected by copyright, the stronger claim is that MyPartyShirt.com violated a trademark by using the Power Rangers name on its site.

U.S. Marshals to Seize Righthaven’s Assets to Pay Legal Fees

The District Court of Nevada ordered U.S. Marshals to seize $63,720 that Righthaven owes in legal fees as a result of its ill-fated lawsuit against blogger Wayne Hoehn, reports paidContent. The court dismissed Righthaven’s copyright suit against Hoehn this summer and awarded legal fees to Hoehn. Righthaven claimed that it could not afford to pay the roughly $30,000 award; the size of the award has since doubled as Hoehn’s lawyers have worked to enforce the judgment. While Righthaven’s legal strategy—the lawsuit against Hoehn was one of nearly 300 similar suits—garnered it some favorable settlements, it has not succeeded in court, as JOLT Digest has reported. Righthaven owes a variety of defendants over $200,000 in legal fees, according to Poynter, and may end up in bankruptcy.