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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Steven Wilfong

Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based on inequitable conduct

ITC’s ruling that uPI violated Consent Order affirmed

Court rules that VeriFone devices did not infringe on payment terminal software patents

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design

French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed

Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement

Read More...

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

Silk Road Founder Loses Argument That the FBI Illegally Hacked Servers to Find Evidence against Him

By Travis West  — Edited by Mengyi Wang

The alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was denied the motion to suppress evidence in his case. Ulbricht argued that the FBI illegally hacked the Silk Road servers to search for evidence to use in search warrants for the server. The judge denied the motion because Ulbricht failed to establish he had any privacy interest in the server.

Read More...

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

Trademark Infringement or First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech?

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys

On October 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, urging  that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”. The brief argues that the use of the names of organizations to comment, critique, and parody, is constitutionally protected by the speaker’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Read More...

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

Twitter goes to court over government restrictions limiting reporting on surveillance requests

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas

Twitter on Oct. 7 sued the government, asking a federal district court to rule that it was allowed to reveal the numbers of surveillance requests it receives in greater detail. Twitter opposes complying with the rules agreed upon by the government and other tech companies in a settlement earlier this year, and argues that the rules violated its rights under the First Amendment.

Read More...

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata
By Erica Larson – Edited by Suzanne Van Arsdale

Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. v. Nagata, No. 2012-1245 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2013)
Slip opinion

Photo By: Derek GaveyCC BY 2.0

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the Northern District of California, which ruled that plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co. (“SEL”) could not establish federal jurisdiction over defendant Dr. Yujiro Nagata. The courts rejected a novel offensive application of assignor estoppel, traditionally a defense, which bars the previous holder of a patent from attacking the patent’s validity when sued for infringement by the assignee.

SEL asserted the doctrine offensively, arguing that Nagata had violated assignor estoppel in a previous lawsuit by testifying against SEL, giving rise to a federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Like the district court before it, the Federal Circuit did not reward plaintiff’s legal creativity. Instead the court held that the argument lacked precedent or strong supporting authority and declined to extend the doctrine. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory at 6–7.

Property, intangible provides an overview of the decision and prior events. Dennis Crouch, writing for Patently-O, speculates that the Federal Circuit would have affirmed without opinion were the Supreme Court not presently considering Gunn v. Minton, a case which questions the extent of federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b). Minton v. Gunn, 355 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. 2011) cert. granted, 133 S.Ct. 420 (2012) (focusing on whether the state law attorney malpractice case raises a federal cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(b)). (more…)

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

By Andrew Crocker

DHS Civil Liberties Office Validates Suspicionless Border Searches of Electronics

Wired reports that the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has released an “Impact Assessment” regarding the authority of customs and border agents to conduct warrantless, suspicionless searches of electronic devices. In its executive summary, the CRCL concluded that the 2009 executive directives allowing such suspicionless searches comply with the Fourth Amendment and that a heightened reasonable suspicion requirement “would be operationally harmful without concomitant civil rights/civil liberties benefits.” Because the CRCL publicly released only the executive summary of the assessment, the American Civil Liberties Organization (ACLU) reports it has filed a FOIA request for the full findings. The ACLU has long been critical of the suspicionless search policy and is representing a plaintiff who alleges his constitutional rights were violated during a 2010 border search that resulted in the 11-day seizure of his laptop.

Obama Criticizes Patent Trolls

Mashable reports that this week, during a technology-focused Google+ Hangout following his State of the Union address, President Obama discussed patent reform and singled out so-called “patent trolls,” businesses that acquire broad patents and use them to sue other inventors. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has posted a video of the Hangout, in which Obama responded to a question about patent trolls by saying, “They don’t actually produce anything themselves. They are essentially trying to leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.” GigaOm praises the President’s stance but suggests that the administration’s past efforts on patent reform, including the 2011 America Invents Act, have not done enough to protect legitimate innovators from suits by patent trolls.

Python Software Foundation Fights Competing Trademark in Europe

Ars Technica reports that the Python Software Foundation (PSF) is fighting an a trademark application in the European Union by a British company, POBox Hosting. PSF, which manages the open source Python programming language community and holds a registered US trademark in the name “Python,” argued in a blog post that POBox’s attempt to trademark the term “Python” in conjunction with its computing services will lead to customer confusion because of the similarity of the organization’s market areas. In the post, PSF’s chairman seeks testimony about the recognizability of the Python trademark from European companies using the programming language. The Guardian notes that the dispute has the potential to mobilize the open source community because of Python’s popularity with developers.

Posted On Feb - 18 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

United States v. Howley
By Ron Gonski – Edited by Daniella Adler

United States v. Howley, Nos. 11–6040, 11–6071, 11–6194 (6th Cir. Feb. 4, 2013)
Slip Opinion

The Sixth Circuit unanimously affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part a ruling by the Eastern District of Tennessee, which found that defendants Howley and Roberts stole trade secrets and committed wire fraud in connection with Goodyear’s tire-manufacturing technology.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the defendants’ convictions but, in response to the government’s cross-appeal, vacated the sentences imposed by the District Court and remanded for resentencing. In so ruling, the Sixth Circuit indicated that the District Court did not supply an estimate of the economic loss from the theft of a trade secret and the reasons for that estimate, as it is obligated to do.

FindLaw provides an overview of the case. The Non-Competes blog notes that the Sixth Circuit opinion appears to open the door for a trial judge, when determining the economic loss due to the theft of a trade secret, to consider evidence that might be inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. (more…)

Posted On Feb - 15 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

FilmOn v. Aereo
By Alex Shank – Edited by Michelle Sohn

Complaint, FilmOn.com, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., No. CV13-00912 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2013)
Complaint (hosted by Scribd)

Online TV site FilmOn.com, Inc. (“FilmOn”) filed a complaint against competitor Aereo, Inc. (“Aereo”) on counts of false designation of origin and false endorsement under the Lanham Act on February 7, 2013 in the United States District Court of the Central District of California. FilmOn also seeks declaratory judgment that its use of the names “Aero” and “Aereokiller” do not violate the Act and that any trademark right in the name “Aereo” claimed by Aereo is invalid.

Since early 2012, FilmOn has marketed and sold the “WinTV-Aero-m” antenna manufactured by Hauppauge Computer Works, Inc. (“Hauppauge”). Just one day before the complaint was filed, Hauppauge assigned the trademark rights to “Aero” to FilmOn. In late 2011, Aereo changed its name from Bamboom Labs, Inc. to Aereo, the name under which it started its online TV site in early 2012. FilmOn argues that Hauppauge had sold “WinTV-Aero-m” antennas since early 2011 and that Aereo intentionally changed its name later that same year to confuse consumers and to attract them to Aereo by capitalizing on the Aero name.

The Hollywood Reporter provides an overview of the case and a discussion of prior legal actions between FilmOn and Aereo. Virtual Strategy Magazine features a brief profile of FilmOn and its reaction to continuing lawsuits brought against it by major TV networks. JOLT Digest covered the recent denial of a preliminary injunction to stop Aereo from broadcasting its television content over the Internet. (more…)

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

Department of Justice White Paper
By Mary Grinman – Edited by Laura Fishwick

Photo By: Cliff - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: CliffCC BY 2.0

Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or an Associated Force (hosted by NBCNews)

On Monday, February 4, NBC made public an unsigned and undated Department of Justice (“DOJ”) White Paper, which concludes that the United States can lawfully use lethal force in a foreign country against a senior operational leader of al-Qa’ida or an associated force who is a U.S. citizen if the following three conditions are met: First, the individual must “pose[] an imminent threat of violent attack  against the United States.” Second, capture must not be possible. Third, any U.S. action must be consistent with the law of war. Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen Who Is a Senior Operational Leader of Al-Qa’ida or an Associated Force [hereinafter “White Paper”], at 1. While the White Paper presents legal analysis separated from any factual scenario, it resembles the legal justification advanced for the 2011 drone strike against Anwar al-Awlaki and could be the basis for future drone attacks.

The New York Times summarizes the DOJ’s argument and describes its current political environment. Wired criticizes the legal rationales behind the document’s conclusions. Lawfare comes down against the media hype generated by the document, and suggests that it is only a more fleshed out version of Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech at Northwestern University last March. (more…)

Posted On Feb - 12 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...