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 Anton Ziajka – Edited by Insue Kim

Case C-131/12, Google Spain SL, et al. v. AEPD, et al. (E.C.J. May 13, 2014)

Slip Opinion

Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: archie4ozCC BY 2.0

The European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) recently interpreted the EU’s Data Protection Directive, 95/46/EC (“Directive”), to affirm an individual’s “right to be forgotten.” See Google Spain, slip op. ¶ 91. The ECJ held that an Internet search engine is obligated, upon an individual’s request, to erase from its search results links to webpages that contain “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive” information that relates personally to the individual. Id. ¶ 94. The search engine must remove such results even if the information contained on the linked webpages is lawful and accurate, id., and even if the inclusion of the linked search results does not cause prejudice to the individual, id. ¶ 96. This obligation is limited to results responsive to searches “made on the basis of” the individual’s name, id. ¶ 94, and does not apply when access to the information is justified by “the preponderant interest of the general public,” id. ¶ 97.

Reactions to the ECJ’s judgment have ranged from condemnation to cautious optimism. TechCrunch provides an interview with Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who criticizes the ruling as censorship of knowledge. By contrast, writers for the Guardian and Wired suggest that the holding may be a step in the right direction toward greater respect for people’s privacy. The New York Times, Ars Technica, and BBC further analyze the holding and its implications.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 1 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Ken Winterbottom

Aereo shut down by Supreme Court ruling

In Wednesday’s 6-3 decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Aereo, a startup company offering streams of TV shows over the internet shortly after the programs are originally broadcast, holding that the company’s business practices violate the Copyright Act of 1976. The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, ruled that Aereo’s services constituted a “public performance” within the meaning of the Act.

Justice Scalia, in an opinion joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, dissented, calling the majority’s “looks-like-cable-TV” rule ad hoc and confusing.

The defeat has been heralded as the end for Aereo, which did not have a “plan B” in the event of an unfavorable decision, according to CEO Chet Kanojia. Some commentators have also warned that it may prove to be a death knell for cloud storage services, though Justice Breyer made it clear that that was a question for another day, expressly limiting the decision’s applicability to broadcast television.

Obama administration promises privacy rights to the EU

In the wake of the 2013 Edward Snowden scandal, members of the European Union expressed widespread concern that their privacy rights were being violated.  On Wednesday, the Guardian reports, the Obama administration pledged to pass legislation granting EU citizens many of the same privacy rights enjoyed by U.S. citizens.

The pledge arguably goes a step further than previous attempts to smooth over damaged post-Snowden U.S.-EU relations, of which European governments were skeptical, calling for concrete action rather than vague promises. However, commentators have already expressed doubt about this most recent move, noting that it will be difficult for the Obama administration to push this “undoubtedly controversial” legislation through Congress.

Massachusetts Supreme Court upholds decryption order

On Wednesday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a criminal suspect may constitutionally be forced to type in a decryption password, in spite of the Fifth Amendment’s right to protect against self-incrimination.

In a 5-2 decision, the court noted that the government already had knowledge of what was on the defendant’s computer, and even what his encryption key was, and limited its holding to that context, stating that the prosecution’s “motion to compel decryption does not violate the defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment because the defendant is only telling the government what it already knows.”

Despite the fact-specific nature of the holding, some commentators, such as ACLU attorney Jessie Rossman, expressed disappointment with the decision, which has been called a step back for privacy.

Meanwhile, judicial consensus on the question is lacking, with the Eleventh Circuit having come out the other way in 2012. In 2013, federal judges in Wisconsin disagreed as to whether or not the Fifth Amendment applies in such cases. Wednesday’s Massachusetts decision is only the next case in a growing jurisdictional split, which may eventually be left for the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve.

Posted On Jun - 29 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Insue Kim

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (783 U.S. ____ June 19, 2014)

Slip Opinion

Intellectual property practitioners and technology companies anxiously awaiting clarification on the patentability of software will find little guidance in the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice. In the highly anticipated decision, the Court declined to articulate a definitive test for when software may be patented, instead relying on the precedent established in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories Inc., 566 U.S. ____ (2012) and Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) to invalidate the software patents at issue.

The dispute involved four patents held by Alice Corporation (“Alice”) related to a computer-implemented method for reducing “settlement risk” in financial transactions (U.S. Patent #5,970,479, #6,912,510, #7,149,720, and #7,725,375). Alice, slip op. at 1. CLS Bank, operator of a global currency transaction network, brought suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that Alice’s patent claims were invalid and unenforceable. Id. at 3. Following Bilski, the District Court held that the claims were ineligible for patent protection because they were drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. at 34. On appeal, the Federal Circuit sitting en banc affirmed the District Court’s decision. Alice filed for certiorari. Id. at 45.

The question before the Supreme Court was whether Alice’s claims were patentable under §101 of the U.S. Patent Act, or whether they were directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. at 1. The Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that Alice’s claims were directed to an abstract idea and contained no inventive concept, thereby rendering them patent-ineligible. (more…)

Posted On Jun - 28 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Kyle Pietari – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale

Photo By: Marc SmithCC BY 2.0

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-786 (U.S. June 2, 2014)

Slip Opinion

A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had found that Limelight Networks, Inc. (“Limelight”) could be liable for inducing infringement of a method patent licensed to Akamai Technologies, Inc. (“Akamai”) by performing several of the method’s claimed steps, and then encouraging its customers to complete a final step.

The Supreme Court held that there can be no liability for induced infringement of a method patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) unless direct infringement has occurred under § 271(a) or another statutory provision. Akamai, slip op. at 1. Under Federal Circuit case law, direct infringement liability under § 271(a) requires that a single party perform all steps of the claimed method. Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F. 3d 1318, 1329. In Muniauction, the Federal Circuit clarified that this requirement is satisfied even if multiple parties perform the steps, so long as one defendant  “exercises ‘control or direction’ over the entire process such that every step is attributable to the controlling party.” Id. Limelight argued and the Supreme Court agreed that, because Limelight did not control its customers’ performance of a step in the claimed method, but merely helped them independently perform that step, direct infringement never occurred under § 271(a). Akamai, slip op. at 2, 5–6. The Supreme Court further ruled that, absent direct infringement, there could be no inducement of infringement under § 271(b), and it rejected the Federal Circuit’s reasoning that induced infringement liability could be predicated on a direct infringement that occurred outside of any statutory provisions. Id. at 4–6.

Patent Docs provides a thorough summary of the case. IPcopy provides commentary about the case’s potential relevance for patent attorneys. PatentlyO analyzes the Federal Circuit’s motivations behind its decision, concluding that it has a “fundamental discomfort with strict liability.” (more…)

Posted On Jun - 24 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Eleventh Circuit Finds Cell Site Location Data Requires Warrant
By Sheri Pan – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

United States v. Quartavious Davis, No. 12-12928 (11th Cir. 2014) Slip Opinion hosted by American Civil Liberties Union

Photo By: Kai Hendry - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: Kai HendryCC BY 2.0

On June 11, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reached a decision in United States v. Quartavious Davis, affirming in part and vacating in part a February 2011 grand jury indictment of Quartavious Davis and five co-defendants for participating and conspiring in several robberies.  During the pre-trial and trial proceedings, Davis moved to suppress cell site information, location data from cellphone service providers that indicate the cell towers near which an individual placed and received phone calls.  The specific cell site data in question showed Davis near the crime scenes of six out of the seven robberies.  Both the pre-trial and trial courts denied his motions, and the jury convicted him on all counts.

On appeal, Davis argued that the court erroneously admitted the cell site location information because the government obtained the data through a court order, not a search warrant. The Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), the statute under which a government entity can obtain subscriber information from electronic communications providers, requires probable cause for a warrant, but only “reasonable grounds to believe that  . . . the records are relevant and material” for a court order.  § 2703(c)–(d).

The question was one of first impression for the court.  Reviewing past search and seizure cases, the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures of electronic communications.  Next, it analyzed the Supreme Court’s opinion in United States v. Jones, where the government had installed a GPS device on the defendant’s vehicle to capture location data.  While Jones involved physical trespass and thus could not conclusively determine the case at hand, the appellate court relied on the Supreme Court’s majority and concurring opinions to determine that the idea that the Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy rights regardless of whether a trespass has occurred, is “alive and well.”  Because a person carries his cellphone into private spaces, even one point of cell site information is within a subscriber’s reasonable expectation of privacy.  Further, that expectation does not diminish when a subscriber shares the information with a third party such as a communications provider, because most customers are likely unaware that their providers are collecting such information.  Consequently, the government cannot obtain cell site location data without a search warrant.  Despite the court’s finding, however, it ruled that the district court did not commit reversible error under the Leon Exception because the officers acted in good faith in obtaining the court order.

Jennifer Granick, a Director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, in a blog post for Just Security argued that Davis may help undermine legal support for the NSA’s bulk metadata collection by asserting that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy to records kept by a third party communications provider.  On the other hand, Orin Kerr, writing for the Washington Post, critiqued the decision, arguing that a reasonable expectation of privacy is based not on the information involved, but the means through which the government obtains the information.  He also questioned the court’s conclusion that most people are unaware that they are sending their information to the provider of their services.

Just Security and Washington Post provide commentary.

Posted On Jun - 24 - 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 ...