By Andrew Crocker

Supreme Court to Hear “Major Test of Copyright Power”

SCOTUSblog reports that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Golan v. Holder to consider a challenge to the federal law that restored U.S. copyrights to certain foreign works that had previously been in the public domain. The petitioners are “orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists, and motion picture distributors” who claim to have relied upon the formerly public domain works. The petitioners have twice appealed to, and been denied by, the United States Circuit Court for the Tenth Circuit. In its next term, the Supreme Court will rule on both arguments rejected by the Tenth Circuit — that the law violates both the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause of the Constitution. According to Publisher’s Weekly, the works restored to copyright include “symphonies by Shostakovich and Stravinsky, books by Virginia Woolf, artwork by Picasso, and films by Fellini and Hitchcock.”

JOLT Digest has previously reported on filing of the writ of petition for certiorari, the Tenth Circuit’s original ruling in Golan, the district court’s subsequent decision, and the Tenth Circuit’s most recent decision.

Sony Subpoenas IP Records of Visitors to PS3 Jailbreak Site

Wired reports that a magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has granted Sony’s subpoena request to require a website host to turn over IP addresses of visitors to a New Jersey hacker’s site. George Hotz, the site owner, posted encryption keys and other software that allow owners of Sony’s Playstation 3 (“PS3”) to “jailbreak” the console. Sony argues that Hotz violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s prohibition on distributing tools that allow circumvention of technological copy protections, since jailbreaking the PS3 allows owners to run pirated games. The court also granted Sony the right to subpoena related information from Hotz’s accounts on Twitter, YouTube and Blogger.

Lime Wire Settles Suit with Music Publishers

Bloomberg reports that a group of music publishers, including EMI and Warner Brothers, has settled their lawsuit against Lime Wire LLC, creator of the now defunct file-sharing service LimeWire. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. Last year, in a suit brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”), Lime Wire was found liable for copyright infringement and forced to shut down. According to CNET, the music publishers filed suit after the RIAA ruling — as did a separate group of record labels, whose suit is still pending. The Hollywood Reporter notes that in the pending suit, Lime Wire has been attempting to use discovery “to show that [labels’] claims of revenue losses are exaggerated.”

Techcrunch Using Facebook “Real Name” Commenting System

Techcrunch announced recently that it is the latest in a series of major sites to use a Facebook-based plugin for user comments on the site’s posts. Because the plugin requires a Facebook account to post, users’ comments will now be associated with their real names, and the comments will be added to their Facebook feed by default. Although Techcrunch says it is responding to “trolls and spammers,” PC Mag wonders if the lack of anonymity will have chilling effects on online debate. Additionally, on the Huffington Post Larry Magid points out that the move further isolates users who choose not to register for Facebook accounts.

Senate Debates Historic Patent Reform Act
By Lauren Henry – Edited by Jad Mills

S. 23: Patent Reform Act of 2011
Bill

The Senate is currently debating the Patent Reform Act of 2011, also known as the Invent America Act (“the Act”).  If passed, the Act would be the first major reform to the patent system in over fifty years. The Act is co-sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Ut, and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia. It enjoyed bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, passing unanimously in early February of this year. According to The Washington Post, Leahy’s office listed major drug companies, IBM, the AFL-CIO, the Association of American Universities, Caterpillar and USPIRG as supporters of the Act.

The two major points of debate are: 1) the shift to a “first-to-file” regime from the existing “first-to-invent” regime, which would simplify patent priority disputes; and 2) altering the grace period to file after third-party disclosures to push inventors to patent inventions earlier. Another area to watch is the Act’s potential impact, or lack thereof, on the status of business method patents. (more…)

District Court Holds Unconstiutional Qui Tam Provisions of False Marking Statute
By Nathan Lovejoy – Edited by Chinh Vo

Unique Prod. Solutions, Ltd. v. Hy-Grade Valve, Inc., No. 5:10-CV-1912 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 23, 2011)
Slip opinion hosted by Inventive Step

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted defendant Hy-Grade’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the qui tam provision of the Patent Act’s False Marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, is unconstitutional.

The district court held that the qui tam provision of 35 U.S.C. § 292(b) violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution because it does not provide the Department of Justice with the adequate statutory controls under the “sufficient control” analysis of Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). In so holding, the court relied on the Federal Circuit’s statement in Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 608 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010) that “the statute is a criminal one[,]” while simultaneously rejecting the Pequignot district court’s historically-grounded analysis of the qui tam provision. The court found instead that “[t]he False Marking statute essentially represents a wholesale delegation of criminal law enforcement power to private entities with no control exercised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”

Law360 provides an overview of the case. IPFrontline believes this decision suggests that “we may see some clarity regarding the constitutionality” of the False Marking statute from the Federal Circuit in the pending case FLFMC, LLC v. Wham-O, Inc., No. 2011-1067. (more…)

By Vivian Tao

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in HIV Test Patent Dispute

Mercury News reports that oral arguments in the Supreme Court began this week over whether a Stanford University researcher’s patent on an HIV test belongs to Stanford or pharmaceutical company Roche. Researcher Mark Holodniy developed the test while he was employed as a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine. The dispute centers around whether he could transfer Stanford’s patent rights while working as a visiting researcher at Cetus laboratories, which later sold that line to Roche. Although the Bayh-Dole Act assigns the patent to Stanford automatically, Holodniy signed a form assigning rights to Cetus for patents that resulted from their collaboration. The decision will determine whether the Bayh-Dole Act remains the source of governance on research patents when researchers sign off on those rights.

Motorola Sues TiVO for Infringement on DVR Patents

Bloomberg reports that Motorola has filed a complaint against TiVo for infringing its patents on digital video recording (“DVR”) technology. General Instrument, a Motorola subsidiary, applied for its DVR patents in 1995; TiVo applied for its own patents for allegedly infringing technology in 1998. PCMag suggests that this suit may be in response to TiVO’s ongoing 2009 suit against Motorola client Verizon on similar claims of infringement related to Verizon’s FiOS service. PCMag notes that this is just the latest in an ongoing battle over DVR providers: in 2009, TiVO sued AT&T U-Verse and was awarded damages from DISH and Echostar on similar claims, while Microsoft sued TiVO last month on software patent violations.

USTR Identifies Top Chinese Search Engine as “Notorious Market”

Business Week reports that the United States Trade Representative’s office has included Baidu.com, China’s top search engine, on its list of “notorious markets” for its use of techniques that link users to commerce sites that sell pirated items. Reuters notes that Baidu.com is the most visited site in China, and one of the top 10 most visited sites in the world. The USTR’s list identified Asian and Latin American regions as the primary markets for these sites, and was followed by a Chamber of Commerce statement encouraging legislators to empower courts to block foreign sites marketing pirated goods.

Former Senator Dodd to Head MPAA

On March 17, former Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd will become the new head of the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”). CNET reports that Dodd is “truly excited” about the new position and named the protection of motion picture studio distributions as his “highest priority.” This announcement comes as the MPAA is engaged in lobbying Congress to pass the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, aimed at fighting piracy.

Federal Circuit Throws out $1.67 Billion Jury Verdict for Lack of Written Description
Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Lab., No. 2010-1144 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)

By Katie Booth – Edited by Chinh Vo
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit recently ruled that a district court erred when it declined to grant the motion of defendant Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) for JMOL that the plaintiff’s asserted patent claims were invalid. In so holding, the court set aside a jury verdict of $1.67 billion in damages to plaintiff Centocor Ortho Biotech (“Centocor”) in the infringement suit concerning antibodies used to treat arthritis.

The Federal Circuit found that Centocor’s written description in its patent application was not adequate and conveyed merely a wish or plan to invent an antibody rather than constructive possession of that antibody. The court also held that Centocor’s disclosure of the TNF-α protein did not provide an adequate written description for all binding antibodies, since the protein was already known and the antibody claimed could not be routinely produced at the time of filing.

Patent Docs and Patently-O provide thorough overviews of the case. (more…)