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 Paulius Jurcys – Edited by Henry Thomas

Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets and Digital Accounts Act, 12 Del. C. §§ 5001 – 5007 (2014).

Delaware Code

On August 12, 2014, the General Assembly of the State of Delaware adopted the Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act sponsored by Rep. Darryl Scott (D-Dover). The Act takes effect on January 1, 2015 and aims to solve the problem of what happens to online accounts after the account holder passes away. The State of Delaware has become one of very few jurisdictions to adopt special rules for this matter.

The Act allows a fiduciary to “have the same access as the [deceased] account holder” within 30 days of making a written request to the account “custodian.”  In a departure from other statutes, the Act assumes that fiduciaries “have the lawful consent of the account holder” even when the account holder has not explicitly provided for this privilege. 12 Del. C. § 5005.

The Act was prepared by attorneys from the Delaware State Bar Association who were cooperating with colleagues from the Uniform Law Commission. The new Delaware Act is largely based on the principles of the Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (“UFADAA”) adopted by the Uniform Law Commission in its July 2014 session.

One of the notable features of the Delaware Act is that it adopts a relatively broad notion of fiduciaries covering personal representatives appointed by will, guardians, trustees, and agents. 12 Del. C. § 5002(9). Though the Act only applies to estates governed by Delaware law, its effects may be far-reaching; digital assets will be subject to the law even if the tech companies (or the deceased herself) are not residents of Delaware.

The proliferation of various digital communication media facilitated much discussion on whether third parties (such as spouses, children or estate managers) should be given access to the deceased person’s online accounts, and, if so, who should be authorized to get access and how should they be allowed to dispose the digital assets in those accounts. (more…)

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

Google Appeals Ruling that Use of Java APIs in Android Violates Oracle’s Copyrights

By Katherine Kwong– Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Google Inc. v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 14–410 (U.S. October 6, 2014)

Petition hosted by The American Lawyer.

how-to-draw-an-android-android-phone_1_000000008746_5On October 6, Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether copyright protections extend to a software “system or method of operation,” such as an application programming interface (API). Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Google Inc. v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 14-410 (U.S. October 6, 2014).

Google and Oracle have been embroiled in a legal battle since 2010, when Oracle filed suit alleging that Google’s use of Java method headers and class names in the Android operating system infringed upon Oracle’s copyrights. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. 872 F.Supp.2d 974, 975 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Hosted by Casetext.com. Oracle claimed that Google “has replicated the structure, sequence and organization of the overall code” of 37 Java API packages. Id.

The trial court ruled in 2012 that Oracle’s Java API was “a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act” that therefore could not be copyrighted.  Id. at 977. The court’s rationale was that the duplicated Java method headers under contention could not be copyrighted because they needed to be duplicated to ensure interoperability. Id. at 976. Java’s class names were likewise ruled ineligible for copyright because “copyright protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.” Id. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Ariane Moss

Microsoft Tax Banned in Italy

In a case filed by Marco Pieraccioli against Hewlett Packard, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Italian residents don’t have to pay for a pre-installed operating system if they don’t want it when purchasing a new computer. Until this decision, users in Italy had to pay for the Windows OS installed on their computer regardless of whether they wanted or intended to use the system. Now Italian residents are entitled to a refund in instances of unwanted pre-installed software. The court’s argument rests on the principle that there are two contracts: one for the purchase of the computer, and one for the use of pre-installed software. While the computer purchase contract is valid, the user licensing agreement for the unwanted software is void.

California Responds to Data Breaches by Strengthening Privacy Laws

California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1710 into law which expands the requirements for businesses that have suffered data breaches. In light of high profile breaches at Target, Neiman Marcus, Home Depot, for example, the California legislature sought to strengthen privacy laws in efforts to protect consumers whose personally identifiable information was compromised by unintentional information disclosure.  The Bill further requires that any business engaged in maintaining personal information fulfill a reasonable security requirement even if the business does not own or license the data.

EU Court Rules Embedding Is Not Copyright Infringement

The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that embedding copyrighted videos is not copyright infringement even if the source video was uploaded without permission. This verdict will shield from liability Internet users who embed copyrighted videos from other websites. The rule comes from the German case BestWater International GmbH v. Michael Mebes, Stefan Potsch, where BestWater International sued two employees for embedding one of its promotional videos on the employees’ personal websites without permission. Under European law, embedding a video does not violate the creator’s copyright claims as long as the file is not altered or communicated to a new public.

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Olga Slobodyanyuk  Edited by Jesse Goodwin

The UN Report from the Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights found that government Internet mass surveillance violates Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”) by impinging on individuals’ privacy. The report found that mass surveillance programs such as NSA’s Prism and GCHQ’s Temporapose a direct and ongoing challenge to an established norm of international law.”

The entire report can be found here.

Article 17 of the ICCPR states that “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home and correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.”

The Special Rapporteur, Ben Emmerson, differentiated between targeted and mass surveillance. Targeted surveillance “depend[s] upon the existence of prior suspicion of the targeted individual or organization,” while mass surveillance allows the “communications of literally every Internet user [to be] potentially open for inspection by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the States concerned.” The report concluded that mass surveillance “amounts to a systematic interference with the right to respect for the privacy of communications, and requires a correspondingly compelling justification.”

The report stated that the broad justification for mass surveillance—that it can aid counter terrorism violations—is neither reasonable nor lawful. According to Emmerson, “the very essence of the right to the privacy of communication is that infringements must be exceptional, and justified on a case-by-case basis.” (more…)

Posted On Oct - 27 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Mengyi Wang

Robert Bosch, LLC, v. Snap-On Inc., 2014-1040 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 14, 2014)

Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision that patent claims without reference to structure are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The dispute involved Bosch’s patent—U.S. Patent No. 6,782,313 (“the ’313 patent”)—which claims “a diagnostic tester that determines whether the computerized control unit in a motor vehicle needs to be reprogrammed.” Slip op. at 2Bosch sued Snap-On for infringing the ’313 patent, and Snap-on countered by arguing that the two claim terms “program loading device” and “program recognition device” are means-plus-function terms that fall within the purview § 112 and are indefinite. Id. at 4. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed with Snap-on. Id. On appeal,  while disagreeing with the district court that any use of the word “means” invokes § 112(f), id. at 7, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims were indefinite. Id. at 12.

In patent applications, it is often easiest to describe an invention as something to be used as a means for a particular function. After the Supreme Court in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker found such descriptions invalid, § 112(f) was specifically added to allow these formulations with some limitations. 329 U.S. 1, 9 (1946) hosted by Justia.com. “Congress decided to permit broad means-plus-function language, but provided a standard to make the broad claim language more definite.” Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., Inc., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1993) hosted by scholar.google.com. The limitations are that “[t]he applicant must describe in the patent specification some structure which performs the specified function,” and the court must relate the language to the corresponding structure. Id. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 27 - 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 ...