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

On August 14, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Draft Guidelines on the direct de novo classification process, a means of accelerating the approval of new types of medical devices posing only low to moderate health risks.[1]  The FDA created de novo classification in 1997, but after the process failed to achieve its purpose of expediting approval, the FDA introduced an alternative de novo process called “direct” de novo.

Read More...

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

Insuring Patents

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Jennifer Chung and Ariel Simms

Despite its increasing availability, patent insurance—providing defensive protection against claims of patent infringement and funding offensive actions against patent infringers—continues to be uncommon. This Note aims to provide an overview of the patent insurance landscape.

Read More...

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

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Seeks to Establish Federal Cause of Action for Trade Secrets Misappropriation

By Suyoung Jang – Edited by Mila Owen

Following the Senate Judiciary Committee’s approval in January of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, the Committee has released Senate Report 114-220 supporting the bill. The bill seeks to protect trade secret owners by creating a federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

The Linked Inheritability Between Two Regions of DNA is an Unpatentable Law of Nature

HP Setback in Challenging the Validity of MPHJ’s Distributed Virtual Copying Patent

CardPool Fails to Escape an Invalidity Judgment But Can Still Pursue Amended Claims

Read More...

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

Amicus Brief by EFF and ACLU Urging Illinois State Sex Offender Laws Declared Unconstitutional under First Amendment

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Mila Owen

With the Illinois Supreme Court gearing up to determine the constitutionality of the state’s sex offender registration statute, two advocacy non-profits have filed amicus briefs in support of striking the law down.

Read More...

By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

H.R. 3309 - Innovation Act

Photo By: Domas MituzasCC BY 2.0

The perceived “patent troll” problem has plagued the U.S. patent system for years. To curb abusive patent litigation, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), with a bipartisan coalition, introduced the “Innovation Act” in the House of Representatives on Oct 23, 2013. The patent reform bill contains a number of provisions that seek to change the landscape of patent procurement, ownership, and enforcement, Patently-O reports.

Patently-O, Info World, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) provide an overview of the legislation and comment on its significance. The American Intellectual Property Law Association has summarized each section of the bill. Patent Docs and The Software Alliance voice concerns. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 3 - 2013 5 Comments READ FULL POST

Ibormeith IP, LLC v Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
By Aditya Gupta – Edited by Kathleen McGuinness

Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 13- 1007 (Fed. Cir. October 22, 2013)
Slip opinion

Photo By: Craig DennisCC BY 2.0

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, which had held on summary judgment that certain means-plus-function claims of Ibormeith IP, LLC’s (“Ibormeith”) US Patent No. 6,313,749 (“the ’749 Patent”) – “Sleepiness Detection for Vehicle Driver or Machine Operator” – were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ibormeith IP, slip op. at 2.

The Federal Circuit held that the claim element “computational means” expressed a means for performing a specified function and thus was subject to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which governs such means-plus-function elements. Id. at 2-3. According to the court, the ‘749 Patent failed to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because it failed to adequately define the structure for the “computational means” limitation in the specification. Id. at 7. In so holding, the court noted that Ibormeith’s arguments regarding the breadth of its disclosure, for the purpose of infringement, must also be held against it as “binding admissions” for the purposes of a 35 USC §112(f) inquiry into claim validity. Id. at 10-11.

PatentlyO summarizes the case’s facts and holding and comments on the ramifications of the decision with respect to litigation strategy. iPFrontline briefly explains the decision and the lessons it provides for practitioners. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 30 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice
By Amy Zhang – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

ACLU v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 17, 2013)
Complaint

Photo By: DonkeyHoteyCC BY 2.0

Two weeks ago, the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation filed a complaint against the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seeking immediate processing and release of DOJ records that the ACLU had requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in late March of this year. Complaint, ACLU v. DOJ (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 17, 2013).

The ACLU requested information related to the use of evidence derived from surveillance authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (“FAA”).  Its complaint alleged that the DOJ had failed to process and release the requested information. In addition to the release of the requested documents, the ACLU is seeking a waiver of search, review, and reproduction fees on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is “in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii).

Ars Technica provides background information on the lawsuit. JOLT Digest and Wired provide summaries of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, No.  11–1025 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2013), which provides the backdrop for the ACLU’s current suit. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 29 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Emma Winer

Icon-newsAmerican Dating Website Withdraws Plan to Sell User Information to Peer Canadian Site

True.com, a U.S. dating website, has called off a plan to sell user information to PlentyOfFish, a Canadian dating website, following an objection to the sale raised by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot in federal bankruptcy court. Abbott alleged that the transfer of personal user information without explicit consent violated the True.com’s privacy policy. PlentyOfFish withdrew its offer to purchase True.com’s information on October 23rd, 2013, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Third Circuit Finds Warrantless GPS Tracking Unconstitutional

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held last Tuesday that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before employing a GPS device to track a suspect’s car, Wired reports. United States v. Katzin, No. 12-2548 (3rdCir. October 22, 2013). Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct.  945 (2012), that attaching a GPS device to a suspect’s car qualified as a search under the Fourth Amendment, but the Court did not explicitly address whether such a search was unreasonable without a warrant. Katzin is the first appellate decision since Jones to find a warrantless GPS search unconstitutional, even if law enforcement officials acted with a good faith belief that their actions complied with the law. Ars Technica discusses the significance of the ruling in greater detail.

Sony Sues United Airlines for Copyright Infringement

Sony Music Entertainment filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against United Airlines last Tuesday. Arista Music v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 13-cv-07451-AT (S.D.N.Y filed October 22, 2013). As Law360 reports, Sony alleges that United Airlines used, without authorization, Sony songs and videos in in-flight media services provided to United Airlines by Inflight Productions Ltd. According to the complaint, United Airlines has acknowledged that the materials in question are copyrighted but has continued to use them anyway. The lawsuit seeks both damages and an injunction to enjoin use of the copyrighted works.

Posted On Oct - 28 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n
By James Grace – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, No. 12-1352 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2013)
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
Denial of Petition

Photo By: EnoksonCC BY 2.0

The Supreme Court denied Nokia’s petition for a writ of certiorari, Denial of Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, No. 12-1352 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2013), upholding the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s finding that Nokia had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. §1337 (“Section 337”), by importing into the U.S. cell phones that violated two U.S. patents owned by InterDigital. Interdigital Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 707 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

In denying the petition without comment, the Supreme Court did not address Nokia’s question concerning the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) jurisdiction over the case. The Federal Circuit held that “licensing alone” could satisfy the “domestic industry” requirement of Section 337. Petition for Writ of Certiorari at 12, Interdigital, 707 F.3d 1295, cert. denied, No. 12-1352. (“Petition”). Nokia had argued that InterDigital had failed to meet the “technical” prong of the domestic industry requirement because it merely licensed its patents and did not manufacture “articles protected by the patent.” Id. at 17-18.

Bloomberg.com provides an overview of the litigation and comments on the significance of the decision for Nokia, InterDigital and other technology companies. (more…)

Posted On Oct - 26 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Draft Guideline for

 By Hyeongsu Park - Edited by Erik Mortensen 1. Introduction On August 14, ...

Unknown

Insuring Patents

By Yaping Zhang Edited by Jennifer Chung and Ariel Simms Despite its ...

Senate Judiciary Committee

Defend Trade Secrets

By Suyoung Jang – Edited by Mila Owen S.1890 - Defend ...

Flash Digest

Federal Circuit Flas

By Evan Tallmadge – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk The Linked Inheritability ...

Illinois Flag

Amicus Brief by EFF

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Mila Owen On April 6, ...