A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Patenting Bioprinting

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas

Bioprinting, the3D-printing living tissues, is real and may be widely available in the near future. This emerging technology has generated controversies about its regulation; the Gartner analyst group speculates a global debate in 2016 about whether to regulate bioprinting or ban it altogether. Another equally important issue which this paper will explore is whether bioprinting is patentable.



More than a White Rabbit: Alice Requires Substantial Difference Prior to Embarking on Patent Eligibility

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first software patent case in thirty-three years. The impact of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank is broad but it appears to be a decision that was long overdue to address the many issues facing patentability of subject matter eligibility in various arenas where such issues are dominant.



Legal and Policy Aspects of the Intersection Between Cloud Computing and the U.S. Healthcare Industry

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom

The U.S. healthcare industry is undergoing a technological revolution, inspiring complicated questions regarding patient privacy and the security of stored personal health information. How can our society capitalize on the benefits of digitization while also adequately addressing these concerns?



Net Neutrality Developments in the European Union

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman

This contribution will consider current moves in the European Union to legislate net neutrality regulation at the regional level. The existing regulatory landscape governing Internet Service Providers in the EU will be outlined, along with net neutrality initiatives at the national level in countries such as Slovenia and the Netherlands. The new proposals to introduce enforceable net neutrality rules throughout the EU will be detailed, with comparison made to the recent FCC proposals in the US, and the extent to which these proposals can be considered adequate to advance the interests of Internet users.



Newegg Wins Patent Troll Case After Court Delays

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis West

The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently issued a final judgement for online retailer Newegg, twenty months after trial, vacating a $2.3 million jury award for TQP. TQP, a patent assertion entity commonly known as a “patent troll,” collected $45 million in settlements for the patent in question before Newegg’s trial.


TufAmerica, Inc. v. WB Music Corp.
By Emma Winer – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

TufAmerica, Inc. v. WB Music Corp. et al, No. 13-07874 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013)
Complaint hosted by Scribd.com.

TufAmerica filed a complaint accusing rap artist Jay Z of infringing the company’s copyright in the song “Hook & Sling Part 1.” According to the complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Jay Z allegedly used a portion, or “sample,” of “Hook and Sling Part 1” in his hit song “Run This Town” without proper authorization from TufAmerica. Complaint, TufAmerica, Inc. v. WB Music Corp., No. 13-07874 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2013), at 1. The lawsuit names Warner Bros. Music and Jay Z’s label, Roc-A-Fella Records, as co-defendants. TufAmerica has filed a number of similar lawsuits against artists such as the Beastie Boys and Kanye West for sampling songs from catalogs that the company had purchased, Rolling Stone reports.

“Hook & Sling Part 1” was originally released in 1969 by Eddie Bo, a now deceased American pianist. TufAmerica bought the song in 1996, including exclusive rights to “release, sublicense, advertise, assign, exploit and sell…” the master recordings, as well as “the performances and compositions embodied therein.” Id. at 3. TufAmerica recorded its copyright with the United States Copyright Office on May 25, 2000. Id. at 4. The company alleges that samples of “Hook & Sling” appear dozens of times in “Run This Town,” which was released in Jay Z’s albums “The Blue Print 3” and “The Hits Collection Volume One.” Id.

The Guardian and Rolling Stone provide an overview of the facts of the lawsuit. The New York Times and Slate have analyzed the rise of so-called “sample trolls,” which profit from buying copyrights to songs in music catalogs and then suing artists who sample the songs without proper licensing. Gigaom and The Atlantic suggest that the rise of such lawsuits could have detrimental creative consequences in the music industry. (more…)

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

Garmin International, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC

By James Grace – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness
Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001 (P.T.A.B. 2013)

Slip Opinion hosted by PatentlyO

Photo By: Kenny LouieCC BY 2.0

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), in its first inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. 311, held in favor of the petitioner, a GPS technology developer, Garmin. Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001 (P.T.A.B. 2013) at 49 (“Decision”). PTAB cancelled three claims of Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC’s (“Cuozzo’s”) U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (“the ’074 patent”), “Speed limit indicator and method for displaying speed and the relevant speed limit,” finding them invalid on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103. Id. PTAB also denied Cuozzo’s Motion to Amend the ’074 patent to substitute the three impugned claims. Id.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case and speculates how PTAB’s decision may threaten Cuozzo’s ongoing infringement action against Garmin and Chrysler in the District Court of New Jersey. Complaint, Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC v. Garmin Int’l, Inc. et al., No. 2:12-cv-03623 (D.N.J. June 15, 2012). (more…)

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

By Jennifer Garnett – Edited by Abhilasha Nautiyal

Photo By: Robert ScobleCC BY 2.0

Earlier this month, Mike Hearn of Google’s Security Department posted online that Google has successfully encrypted the data traffic between its servers. This undoes the National Security Agency’s (“NSA”) work in creating the surveillance program “MUSCULAR,” which taps into the connections between Google and Yahoo’s private data centers.

On October 30, the Washington Post released another wave of information attributed to Edward Snowden that described how the NSA had “broken into” the communication links between Google and Yahoo’s private data centers under a program codenamed MUSCULAR. The NSA is reported to operate this program jointly with its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters. The tapping of these communication fibers gives the NSA access to millions of users’ data, including both metadata and content, regardless of whether or not they were suspected terrorists or criminals.

RT quotes Google’s chief legal officer, David Drummond as being “outraged” over the program, explaining that they have “long been concerned” about this kind of activity, and have been slowly extending encryption across Google’s myriad of services in an attempt to protect its users. Drummond’s statement was made in response to the Washington Post report of October 30 and continues, “[w]e are outraged at the lengths to which the government seems to have gone to intercept data form our private fiber networks, and it underscores the need for urgent reform.”

According to Ars Technica, Google has had a full-encryption initiative for over a year, but accelerated the initiative in June after Snowden leaked the news of the NSA and FBI’s joint “PRISM” program. Under this program, the NSA could gain front-door access to users’ data by demanding data related to certain keywords or search terms. This program was previously covered by the Digest. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 18 - 2013 1 Comment READ FULL POST

J.W. Spear & Sons v. Zynga Inc.
By Michelle Goldring – Edited by Jennifer Wong

J.W. Spear & Sons v. Zynga Inc., [2013] EWHC 3348 (Ch)

Photo By: Brian BurgerCC BY 2.0

The England and Wales High Court of Justice, Chancery Division held that infringement of Scrabble’s trademarked name did not occur when Zynga titled its games “Scramble” and “Scramble with Friends.” J.W. Spear & Sons v. Zynga, Inc., [2013] EWHC 3348 (Ch) at 147. It also held that the word “Scramble” was used to refer to games of that type and therefore did not infringe on Mattel’s trademark of that word. Id. at 158–59. However, the court also expressed concern that the “Scramble” logo created a likelihood of confusion because of its design. Id. at 142.

The court relied largely on Mattel’s previous actions to prove that the company itself did not seem to acknowledge confusion or infringement in a timely fashion to defeat Mattel’s trademark infringement claims. Id. at 46. Beyond its official holding, the court also noted that Zynga’s “Scramble” logo could potentially be misleading to consumers. Id. at 145. In the “Scramble” logo, the “m” is placed on its side such that it resembles the Scrabble name,. Id. at 142.

BBC News and PC Mag provide brief descriptions of the case and the reactions of the parties.  World IP Review gives a fuller description of the judge’s reasoning. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 13 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written By: Charles Colman
Acting Assistant Professor at NYU School of Law

Edited By: Elise Young

“For this most inadequate proof [of consumer recognition], applicant asks us to give it the exclusive right to use red and blue bands on men’s white, ribbed socks — that we cannot do.”

In re Izod, Ltd., 296 F.2d 771, 778 (C.C.P.A. 1961)




On September 30, 2013, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board[1] issued a troubling decision in In re Bottega Veneta Int’l S.a.r.l.[2] Viewed in a broader context, the decision reflects the Board’s growing reluctance to apply the doctrine of “aesthetic functionality”[3] in ex parte prosecution proceedings to bar the issuance of potentially anticompetitive trade-dress[4] registrations. The TTAB gives its imprimatur to the dubious “trade dress” at issue in Bottega Veneta through procedural moves whose novelty and import could easily go unacknowledged — specifically, (1) the Board’s declaration of its intention to resolve “doubts” as to aesthetic functionality in favor of applicants, and (2) the Board’s disposal of concerns about product-design monopolization through reliance on supposedly limiting conditions agreed to by the applicant, but which the federal courts will not observe or enforce. As such, In re Bottega Veneta — despite its technical status as a mere “non-precedential” decision by an agency whose determination can theoretically be revisited by the federal courts — will improperly hinder marketplace competition and restrict creative freedom among designers. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 12 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay

Patenting Bioprintin

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas “Patenting tends to ...


More than a White Ra

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West I. Introduction On ...

Prescription Medication Spilling From an Open Medicine Bottle

Legal and Policy Asp

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom The United ...

Photo By: Razor512 - CC BY 2.0

Net Neutrality Devel

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman 1.      Introduction This contribution will ...


Newegg Wins Patent T

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis ...