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...

Unites States v. Magana
By Casey Holzapfel – Edited by Geng Chen

United States v. Magana, No. 12-CR-154 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 29, 2012)
Order

United States v. Mendoza, No. 12-CR-154 (WCG/WEC) (E.D. Wis. Oct. 9, 2012)
Recommendation

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ruled that Wisconsin law enforcement officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they installed hidden surveillance cameras on private property without a warrant. Judge William Griesbach accepted the recommendation of Magistrate Judge William Callahan to deny the defendants’ requests to suppress evidence obtained through the use of hidden cameras. Magana, slip op. at 1.

The court held that the installation of surveillance equipment did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was placed outside the “curtilage”—the land surrounding the house where private activities are expected to take place. Mendoza, slip op. at 3–4.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 8 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Section 1201 Rulemaking: Fifth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions
By Jessica Vosgerchian – Edited by Dorothy Du

Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights

On October 25, the Register of Copyrights and the Librarian of Congress announced new recommendations for exemptions to Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) effective October 28. Section 1201(a)(1)(A) of the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent technological controls found in electronic devices that control access to copyrighted works. Section 1201(a)(1)(B), however, allows the Register to grant exemptions to be reviewed every three years. In this year’s review, the Register upheld the legality of jailbreaking smartphones and decrypting DVD and e-book controls for the visually- and hearing-impaired. The Register also broadened exemptions for fair use of video excerpts. However, the new rules prohibit “unlocking” smartphones purchased after January 2013, forbid jailbreaking tablets and game consoles, and prohibit “space shifting.”

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 7 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc.
By Suzanne Van Arsdale – Edited by Sounghun Lee

United States v. Kolon Indus., Inc., No. 3:12-Cr-137 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21, 2012)
Indictment hosted by legaltimes.typepad.com

The Department of Justice brought a criminal indictment against South Korea-based Kolon Industries Inc. (“Kolon”) and five of its executives in the Eastern District of Virginia on one count of conspiracy to convert trade secrets, four counts of theft of trade secrets, and one count of obstruction of justice.

According to the indictment, filed on August 21, 2012, Kolon and its executives engaged in years of corporate espionage. The government accused Kolon of paying former and current employees of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (“DuPont”) and Teijin Ltd. and its subsidiaries (“Teijin”) to reveal confidential and proprietary information related to the manufacture of synthetic fiber, in violation of the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (the “Act”). Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–294, 110 Stat. 3488 (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1839 (2006)).

The Wall Street Journal and Reuters provide an overview of the indictment. Bloomberg Businessweek noted that Kolon’s alleged theft of trade secrets has already resulted in a jury verdict awarding DuPont nearly $920 million and a prison sentence for a former DuPont employee who pled guilty to theft of trade secrets.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp.
By Dorothy Du – Edited by Daniella Adler

DC Comics v. Pacific Pictures Corp., No. CV 10-3633 ODW (RZx), (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012)
Slip opinion

The District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the heirs of Joseph Shuster, the first illustrator of Superman, signed away their right to reclaim Superman copyrights in an agreement with DC Comics (“DC”). The court granted plaintiff DC’s motion for partial summary judgment.

The court held that a 1992 agreement between the Shusters and DC barred the Shusters from terminating copyright grants to DC. DC Comics, slip. op. at 7. The court also found that section 304(d) of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides former copyright owners a termination right, did not apply. Id. at 5.

Ars Technica explains copyright termination doctrine and points out that Pacific Pictures Corporation is a joint venture owned by the defendants and their attorney in the case, Toberoff. The Los Angeles Times highlights the importance of the victory to Warner Bros., DC’s parent company. If DC had lost the case, the studio, which is releasing the movie Man of Steel next June, would have been unable to continue using certain elements of the Superman mythos.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 24 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
By David LeRay – Edited by Michael Hoven

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2012-1507 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California, which had granted a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone. The case was decided by Judges Prost, Moore, and Reyna, who acted unanimously.

The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Apple established it was at risk of irreparable harm, one of the necessary factors under the eBay test elaborated by the Supreme Court to determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction. See Apple, No. 2012-1507, slip op. at 5 (citing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). Specifically, Apple did not prove that a “sufficiently strong causal nexus relates the alleged harm to the alleged infringement.” Id. at 6.

Patently-O provides an overview of the case and argues that the decision elevates the preliminary injunction standard and thus makes it more difficult for patentees to obtain injunctive relief. Reuters states that the case is an implicit endorsement of Judge Richard Posner’s skepticism regarding remedies in the context of smartphone feature patents and that the case is a “palpable blow” to Apple’s smartphone legal strategy.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 22 - 2012 Comments Off 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 ...