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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Anne Woodworth

UK Court Allows Safari Users to Sue Google over Privacy Settings

FTC Responds to Allegations that it Ignored Staff Recommendations to Sue Google

Citigroup Report Criticizes Law Firms for not Reporting Hacking

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Rejects En Banc Review of Infringement Willfulness Standard

By Paulius Jurcys – Yaping Zhang

The Federal Circuit rejected a motion for en banc review of a patent infringement case evaluating the willfulness standard and whether the standard should be changed in order to meet the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in the Octane decision.

Read More...

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

The FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules on Protecting and Promoting Open Internet

By Shuli Wang – Edited by Yaping Zhang

Two weeks after voting on regulating broadband Internet service as a public utility, on March 12, the Federal Communications Commission (”FCC”) released a document (the FCC Order and Rules) on net neutrality, which reclassifies high-speed Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, thus subjecting Internet service providers (ISPs) as common carrier to regulations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. The purpose of the new rules is to ensure the free flow of bits through the web without paid-for priority lanes and blocking or throttling of any web content.

Read More...

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

White House releases administration discussion draft for Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015

By Lan Du – Edited by Katherine Kwong

On February 27, 2015, President Obama released an administration draft of a proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act. The proposed bill’s stated purpose is to “establish baseline protections for individual privacy in the commercial arena and to foster timely, flexible implementations of these protections through enforceable codes of conduct developed by diverse stakeholders.”

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Patrick Gallagher

Federal Circuit Affirms Denial of AT&T Motion to Extend or Re-open Filing Period for Appeal in Patent Infringement Suit

In Patent Suit Against Apple, Federal Circuit Affirms in Part, Reverses in Part

Federal Circuit Reverses DNA Sequencing Technology Patent Construction

Read More...

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
By Mary Schnoor – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 12-1658 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2013)
Slip opinion

On October 9th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that two patents owned by Intellect Wireless, Inc. (“Intellect”) are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 12-1658, 1 (Fed. Cir. October 9, 2013). Intellect had claimed that HTC Corp., the Taiwanese smartphone maker, infringed patents covering technology allowing a wireless device to receive and display caller identification information. Id.

The Federal Circuit unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision, which found that Daniel Henderson, the founder of Intellect and inventor of the patents in question, intentionally submitted false statements as part of his Rule 131 declaration to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and that his actions satisfied the Therasense standard for inequitable conduct. Id. at 3. During the prosecution of the patents, Henderson made false statements to the USPTO, claiming that he had actually reduced his invention to practice and that he had demonstrated it at a meeting in 1993. Id. at 4. Although Henderson’s attorney attempted to cure this misconduct by submitting revised declarations, the court’s opinion emphasized that such efforts to cure misconduct will be unsuccessful unless they explicitly acknowledge the false declaration’s existence to the USPTO and clearly state what was false and what the actual facts are. Id. at 5-6.

IPFrontline explains the court’s ruling and the lessons it provides for patent attorneys seeking to correct false declarations.  PharmaPatents also reviews the ruling, and PatentlyO provides a brief summary. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 22 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Mengyi Wang

Protecting Dwindling Elephant Populations in Kenya: Google Earth, Drones, and Legislation

The lucrative ivory trade continues to fuel elephant poaching, spurring the alarming decline in Kenya’s elephant population. To halt the decline, conservationists working near Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve have been tracking and redirecting elephants, Bloomberg reports. The conservationists have equipped 15 elephants with GPS devices to track their locations via Google Earth. When the elephants have strayed near poaching areas or human conflict, drones frighten them toward safe places using unpleasant sounds. Kenya has also proposed legislation penalizing the slaughter of elephants with fines of as much as 10 million Kenyan shillings ($117,000) and 15-year sentences.

California Governor Vetoes State Electronic Privacy Bill

Last Saturday, California Governor Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bill 467 (“SB 467”), which would have required state law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant before accessing the contents of electronic communications and to notify a user within three days of receiving those contents. Brown, in his veto message, questioned the wisdom of imposing “new notice requirements that go beyond those required by federal law and could impede ongoing criminal investigations.” Electronic Frontier Foundation, a sponsor of the bill, disagrees. It argues that the 27-year-old federal Stored Communications Act, which allows police to access without a warrant the contents of electronic communications that have been stored on a server for more than 180 days, is “woefully outdated.” It also explains that SB 467 would have incorporated the delayed notice provisions in federal law in order to avoid hindering criminal investigations. The Hill and Electronic Frontier Foundation discuss the factual and legal background of the legislation in more detail.

SeaChange Prevails in ARRIS Patent Dispute

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court’s rejection of ARRIS Group, Inc.’s (“ARRIS”) (formerly nCUBE Corporation) allegations that SeaChange International Inc. (“SeaChange”) was in contempt of a 2006 permanent injunction enjoining SeaChange from selling products that infringe ARRIS’s media server patent. nCUBE Corp.  v. Seachange Int’l Inc., No. 13-1066 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2013). The litigation dates back to 2001, when nCUBE Corporation, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,805,804 (“the ‘804 patent”), commenced a patent infringement suit against SeaChange for its Interactive Television (“ITV”). Id. at 2-3. Following an adverse jury verdict in 2002, SeaChange released a redesigned version of its ITV that it believed to be non-infringing. Id. at 3. In 2009, ARRIS filed a motion for contempt in a federal district court and alleged that the minor changes in SeaChange’s new ITV system did not bring it outside of the scope of the ’804 patent. Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that the lower court did not err in finding that ARRIS failed to show that SeaChange’s new ITV was “not more than colorably different” from the infringing ITV, TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 646 F.3d 869, 882-83 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc), and affirmed the denial of ARRIS’s motion. nCUBE, No. 13-1066 at 10. Multichannel and MarketWatch feature summaries of the litigation history and Seagate’s reaction to the decision.

Posted On Oct - 21 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

United States v. Moalin
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Elise Young

United States v. Moalin, 10-CR-4246 (JM) (S.D. Cal. filed Oct. 22, 2010)
Defendants’ Joint Motion for a New Trial and Prosecution’s Response and Opposition hosted by Ars Technica

Photo By: jeffschulerCC BY 2.0

Basaaly Moalin, a Somali immigrant who earlier this year was convicted of conspiring to provide material support to the terrorist group al-Shabaab, filed a motion for a new trial last month. Moalin based his motion upon facts that surfaced during congressional hearings held in response to Edward Snowden’s release of information about the U.S. government’s electronic surveillance programs. Joint Motion for a New Trial at 1, Moalin (“Motion”). The government filed its response and opposition on September 30.

U-T San Diego reports on Moalin’s conviction and motion for a new trial. Slate and Ars Technica provide analysis of the case and its potential implications. The Washington Post reports on the FBI and NSA’s disclosures about the NSA’s surveillance of Moalin. JOLT Digest has previously reported on the surveillance leaks and related litigation. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 20 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Delfi AS v. Estonia
By Jennifer Garnett – Edited by Elise Young

Delfi AS v. Estonia, no. 64569/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. (October 10, 2013)
Judgment

Photo By: Eugene RegisCC BY 2.0

The European Court of Human Rights  (“ECHR”) upheld Estonian court rulings that Delfi, an online news portal in Estonia, was liable for defamatory comments posted by its users. Delfi AS v. Estonia, no. 64569/09, ¶¶7, 94, Eur. Ct. H.R. (October 10, 2013). Delfi was fined 5,000 kroons (approximately $426) in damages. Id. at ¶23. The ECHR affirmed the finding that Delfi could be held liable as a “publisher” of the work, id. at ¶50, and held that the decisions represented a “justified and proportionate” restriction on Delfi’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”). Id. at ¶94. In so holding, the ECHR noted that Delfi was “expected to exercise a degree of caution” in monitoring comments on predictably controversial articles. Id. at ¶86. The ECHR further held that it was both practical and reasonable to hold Delfi liable, as the actual authors of the comments were anonymous and Delfi derived a commercial benefit from allowing its users to comment. Id. at ¶¶91, 93. The decision, however, may still be appealed.

Index, Forbes, and the International Business Times, strongly criticize the case, arguing that the decision departs from the traditional approach to liability for anonymous comments, and that the result could have far-reaching implications for Internet liability and the freedom of anonymity. Inforrm’s Blog features a thorough and critical analysis of the Court’s decision. The ECHR’s press release may be found here. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 19 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Mark Verstraete

Icon-newsMassachusetts District Court Denies Motion For Preliminary Injunction against Aereo

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion for preliminary injunction against Aereo, Inc. (“Aereo”), a company that captures television broadcast signals with individualized antennas and streams the broadcasts to paying subscribers. Hearst Stations Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-cv-11649, at 3 (D. Mass. October 8, 2013). Hearst Stations Inc. (“Hearst”) claimed that use of Aereo’s technology directly infringes on exclusive rights guaranteed to Hearst as copyright holder under 17 U.S.C §106. In denying the motion, the court assessed the likelihood of Hearst succeeding on the merits and the likelihood of Hearst suffering irreparable damage without injunctive relief (Hearst, No. 13-cv-11649 at 8). The analysis of Hearst’s success on the merits focused predominately on whether Aereo “perform[ed] the copyrighted [audiovisual] work publicly,” a right exclusively reserved for the copyright holder. Id. at 9. The court reasoned that Aereo’s activities did not constitute a “public performance” because Aereo’s manner of transmitting TV signals creates “copies unique to each user and only at the user’s request.” Id. at 11. The court conceded that it was possible that Hearst could experience irreparable harm but concluded that the harm, if it did occur, would most likely materialize after the litigation and that demonstrating the potential for harm does not outweigh Hearst’s failure to show likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 18. JOLT Digest covered earlier disputes involving Aereo, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction against Aereo brought by several broadcast TV networks. ArsTechnica provides further coverage.

Airbnb Responds to Subpoena from New York Attorney General

Airbnb, Inc. (“Airbnb”), a company that provides an online platform for connecting “Hosts” that seek to rent their accommodations to “Guests” seeking accommodations, responded to a subpoena demanding information about 15,000 of its New York Hosts to determine if the Hosts’ practices violated New York laws regulating rental agreements and taxes. Airbnb, Inc. v. Schneiderman, Memorandum of Law in Support of the Verified Petition, at 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. October 9, 2013) (Hosted by ArsTechnica).  Airbnb contends that the subpoena implicates serious privacy concerns because it is overly broad. Id. at 4. That is, Hosts that are “not subject to the laws” or “are exempt from the tax scheme” may fall within the scope of the requested information. Id. at 2. Airbnb also pushed back on the New York housing laws themselves by claiming that they are inherently vague and thus fail to give fair notice. Id. at 6.

Delaware District Court Dismisses Class Action Suit Against Google Regarding Personally Identifiable Information

A federal judge dismissed a class action suit against Google because the plaintiffs had failed to show “an injury in fact” and thus lacked standing to bring the suit. In Re: Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, No. 12-md-02358-SLR (D. Del. October 9, 2013) (Hosted by The Am Law Daily). The claim against Google arose from its practice of embedding advertisements with code that deceives Apple Safari and Internet Explorer into accepting third-party cookies. Id. at 1. The plaintiffs claim that the manipulation of an Internet browser into accepting cookies infringes on their economic interests – constituting an injury in fact – because it provides the defendants with the plaintiffs’ valuable information without paying for it. Id. at 4. The plaintiffs supported the idea that their personal information is economically valuable because it can be sold directly to advertisers. Id. at 5. The court reasoned that, although the plaintiffs demonstrated that personal data has value, they failed to show that their ability to monetize their data “has been diminished or lost by virtue of Google’s previous collection of it.” Id. at 6-7. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to allege an injury-in-fact and lacked Article III standing. TechCrunch contextualizes the decision within the larger Federal Trade Commission investigation.

Posted On Oct - 15 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Anne Woodworth UK Court Allows Safari Users to Sue Google ...

e222580_includeB

Federal Circuit Reje

By Paulius Jurcys – Yaping Zhang Order: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. ...

600px-NetNeutrality_logo.svg_

The FCC’s Net Neut

By Shuli Wang - Edited by Yaping Zhang THE FCC 15-24 ...

13399-surveillance_news

White House releases

By Lan Du – Edited by Katherine Kwong Administration Discussion Draft: ...

Unknown

Federal Circuit Flas

By Patrick Gallagher Federal Circuit Affirms Denial of AT&T Motion to ...