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 Marcela Martinez

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...

Senior Exec. Ass’n v. United States
By Mary Grinman – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

Senior Exec. Ass’n v. United States, No. 8:12-cv-02297-AW (S.D. Md. Sept. 13, 2012)
Slip opinion

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Maryland granted a motion for a temporary preliminary injunction, enjoining the United States from executing any part of Section 11 of the Stock Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012 (“STOCK Act” or “Act”), and from obliging federal employees to divulge any financial information that is subject to Internet publication by federal agencies.

Judge Williams ruled that the plaintiffs’ interests in protecting their privacy are more likely than not to outweigh the government’s interest in disclosing their financial information. Senior Exec. Ass’n, slip op. at 16. The court noted that privacy interests have become more significant in light of the “Information Age,” which makes it possible to rapidly assemble and spread immense quantities of information. Id. at 9.

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog provides a brief overview of the case. Corporate Counsel provides additional background information on the STOCK Act. Joe Davidson of the Washington Post criticizes the Act as “rushed,” and discusses the impact of the Act and the court’s ruling on individual federal employees.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 19 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust
By Natalie Kim – Edited by Laura Fishwick

Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, 11-CV-06351-HB (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012)
Slip opinion

On Wednesday the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted HathiTrust’s motion for summary judgment on the copyright infringement claims, dismissing the claims brought by the Authors Guild. The HathiTrust Digital Library (“HDL”) is a massive, Google-affiliated book-digitization project led by academic institutions such as the University of California and Indiana University; it had scanned and placed books in the HDL without consulting rights holders. The Authors Guild claimed this violated § 106 and § 108, and sought an injunction against further distribution of the works and impoundment of already scanned works.

The district court held that HathiTrust’s digitization constituted fair use. HDL provides full-text search for copyrighted works for which the rights holder has granted permission and for works in the public domain; 73 percent of the trust’s 10 million books are copyrighted. The affiliated universities have been using HDL for full-text searches, preservation, and access for people with certified print disabilities. Four universities also created full-text access for “orphan works,” which are in-copyright works for which the rights holders are unavailable or otherwise unidentifiable. Google has scanned the books for HDL as part of its Google Books project; a separate litigation between the Authors Guild and Google is stalled on appeal.

Publishers Weekly provides an overview of the case. At Laboratorium, James Grimmelmann predicts the Authors Guild has little chance of a successful appeal due to what he views as the clear victory awarded to HathiTrust and print-disabled codefendants.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 15 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

By Evelyn Chang

Presidential Commission Calls for Privacy Protections in Genome Sequencing

Science Insider reports that the Presidential Commission on Bioethics has issued a new report on privacy issues associated with whole genome sequencing of patients.  The cost to sequence the entire genome of an individual is dropping rapidly, and genome sequencing is predicted to one day become common practice in medical treatment and research.  However, current guidelines and policies vary by state and do not provide consistent protection against misuse of genomic data.  The report outlines several steps to protect individuals’ private genetic information while encouraging data sharing and research access.

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Seed Patent Case

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co., reports Wired. The case was originally brought as a patent infringement suit by Monsanto against Bowman, a farmer in Indiana. Bowman had purchased commodity soybeans from a grain elevator for planting, which contained Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybeans. The District Court of the Southern District Indiana granted summary judgment for Monsanto, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. In their petition for certiorari (hosted by SCOTUSblog), Bowman argues that the doctrine of patent exhaustion should apply, or that there should be an exception for self-replicating technologies, such as seeds.

Federal Circuit Ends Injunction Against Samsung Galaxy Nexus

On October 11, the Federal Circuit reversed a preliminary sales injunction on Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus, reports Reuters. In February 2012, Apple brought suit against Samsung in the Northern District of California, alleging that the Galaxy Nexus infringes eight Apple patents. The preliminary injunction was granted based on one of those eight patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604, which is directed towards an apparatus for unified search. Earlier this month, the San Jose Mercury News reported that U.S. District Judge Koh also dissolved an injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

Patentability of Software to be Reconsidered En Banc by Federal Circuit

The Federal Circuit has ordered an en banc rehearing to consider the patentability of software in CLS Bank Int’l. v. Alice Corp., App. No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). PatentlyO reports that the Federal Circuit has reformulated the questions presented to consider how to determine when a computer-implemented invention is an unpatentable abstract idea, and whether method, systems, and storage medium claims for software should be considered equivalent.  The court has also invited the USPTO to file an amicus curiae brief. In the original decision (previously covered by the Digest), now vacated, the court held two to one that computer programs are patentable post-Prometheus.

Posted On Oct - 14 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

The Digest will be taking a short break from our regular coverage over the next two weeks as JOLT kicks off its 1L and transfer recruiting season.

While we take our hiatus from regular coverage, we hope you enjoy reading the Digest Comments we posted over the last three weeks. Comments are longer opinion pieces on especially significant issues in law and technology. These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics they believe warrant closer examination and study. We have great pieces this year, and we hope you will let us know with your comments if you enjoy them!

We’ll be back at the end of the month with our usual coverage. Thank you for reading!

The Digest Staff

Posted On Sep - 13 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written By: Sounghun Lee
Edited By: Esther Mulder
Editorial Policy

Introduction

Traditionally, a U.S. patent could only be infringed by activities performed wholly within the United States. In 1972, the Supreme Court held in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. that exporting domestically made components of a patented product for assembly abroad was not a direct infringement under U.S. patent law.[i] In an effort to account for the growing global marketplace, Congress has revised and expanded the definition of  “infringing activities” to include extraterritorial activities. This is reflected in 35 U.S.C. § 271, which generally outlines circumstances in which patents are infringed. In particular, § 271(g) provides the authority to enforce a U.S. process patent by prohibiting the importation of products made outside the U.S. that would otherwise violate the patent.[ii] It is important to note that § 271(g) only covers a patent over processes and not the products themselves.[iii]

In Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the defining case for § 271(g) jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit held that to have a claim under § 271(g), an imported product must be physical and tangible,[iv] without clearly defining which products are “physical and tangible”. This uncertainty is especially problematic with reference to new technologies. For example, it is unclear whether information contained in electronic signals is considered a physical and tangible product, and this leaves opportunities for infringers to take advantage of the gaps in case law. In light of these ambiguities, understanding the boundaries of § 271(g) is crucial in the age of advancing technologies and the burgeoning global economy. This Comment discusses the extraterritorial reach of § 271(g) and the shortcomings of the two decisions made by the Federal Circuit on this issue. Additionally, this Comment analyzes recent district court cases regarding the question of whether data or information contained in electric signals embedded in physical articles should be considered physical tangible products under § 271(g). (more…)

Posted On Sep - 6 - 2012 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 Marcela Martinez 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. ...