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

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...

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

Popular Samsung Phones under Investigation for Patent Infringement

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Saukshmya Trichi

The US International Trade Commission has instituted an investigation of patent infringement involving some of Samsung’s most popular smartphones. ITC will have to decide whether it is in the public interest to ban a major producer from selling its phones in the US.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Kathleen McGuinness

Two contested patent terms upheld as means-plus-function

Judgment of damages sufficient to render plaintiff a prevailing party for fee awards

Read More...

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

Google Faces Potential Lawsuit in Connection with Celebrity Photo Leaks

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang

Celebrities impacted by the theft and distribution of personal images stored on Apple’s iCloud service may soon head to court seeking damages from Google for continued copyright infringement and privacy violations. Google is accused of failing to remove the private pictures pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and threatened with a lawsuit for compensatory and punitive damages that could reach over $100,000,000 unless the offending content is promptly taken down.

Read More...

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

Apple Provides Default Encryption that Protects Data Stored on Device

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Travis West

Apple announced that they could no longer access information stored on their newest devices operating iOS 8. This means that if law enforcement comes to the company with a seized device and a valid warrant, Apple would be incapable of accessing the data. Google says Android L will do the same. Privacy advocates have applauded this feature, while government officials have denounced it.

Read More...

Canadian Supreme Court Ends Royalties for Online Music Downloads

By Andrew Crocker — Edited by Michael Hoven

Entertainment Software Association (ESA) v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada (SOCAN), 2012 SCC 34; Rogers Communications Inc. v. SOCAN, 2012 SCC 35, SOCAN v. Bell Canada, 2012 SCC 36.

Opinions available at the Supreme Court of Canada.

In three copyright decisions on July 12, the Canadian Supreme Court interpreted the scope of rights in musical works under Canada’s Copyright Act. In Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the court overturned a finding of the Canadian Copyright board that when a user downloads a song from an online music store, it is not a communication to the public. In Rogers, however, it found that streaming a song from an online music service was “a communication to the public” requiring a royalty payment to the artist for a performance of the song. Finally, in Bell, the court held that the 30–90 second streaming previews of songs available from stores like iTunes do not require payment of a royalty to the artist. Together, the rulings significantly change the status quo for royalties collected by SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) on behalf of artists for digital performances of their works.

Reuters has an overview of the decisions. Techvibes discusses the impact of the Entertainment Software Association decision on the video game industry.
(more…)

Posted On Jul - 23 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Dorothy Du

Federal Circuit Reconsiders Myriad’s Gene Patents on Remand

This past Friday, July 20, the Federal Circuit heard 45 minutes of oral arguments for Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad on remand on whether isolated breast cancer genes are unpatentable products of nature, reports Bloomberg Businessweek. A year ago, JOLT Digest reported on the Federal Circuit’s decision to uphold the patent eligibility of isolated DNA. However, following a Supreme Court decision to strike down a diagnostic patent as an unpatentable law of nature in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., a case JOLT Digest summarized, Myriad was remanded to the Federal Circuit. Reuters reports that at Friday’s oral arguments, Myriad attorney Greg Castanias compared isolating the patented genes to creating a baseball bat out of a tree, while opposing counsel for the USTPO compared the process to mining coal from the ground. According to Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the panel of judges hearing the arguments appeared to remain steadfast in their original positions on the patents. Judges Lourie and Moore made comments expressing their approval of Myriad’s patents, while Judge Bryson, who dissented in the original ruling, reiterated his belief that gene sequences are unpatentable products of nature. The oral arguments can be heard at the website of the Federal Circuit.

Europe to Approve Its First Gene Therapy

According to Wall Street Journal Health Blog, the European Union’s European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) has recommended the approval of a gene therapy to treat a rare genetic disorder. The European Commission ordinarily follows the EMA’s recommendations. An approval would be groundbreaking, according to the New York Times, because it would be the first approval of a gene therapy in the Western world; China approved a gene therapy for cancer back in 2003. Gene therapy theoretically works by supplying the body with normal copies of defective genes, thereby targeting diseases at their source. Followers of this exciting technology, however, have been disappointed by experimental results until now. Creating successful gene therapies has been a struggle because of challenges associated with inserting the genes safely and preventing immune reactions to the inserted genes, reports the AP. The New York Times explains that the gene therapy awaiting approval is called Glybera, is manufactured by uniQure, and treats lipoprotein lipase deficiency, a condition caused by a mutation that prevents patients from producing an enzyme that breaks down fat particles in the blood.

ITC Ban on Importing Motorola’s Android Products Takes Effect

An International Trade Commission (“ITC”) exclusion order banning the importation into the United States of Motorola Android devices took effect this past Wednesday, July 25, reports Ars Technica. The order issued two months ago, pursuant to the ITC’s ruling that 18 Motorola Mobility products infringed a Microsoft patent related to Microsoft’s Exchange Active Sync technology, which allows users to accept invitations and add events to their Google calendar. David Howard, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel, has stated that “Microsoft brought this case only after Motorola stopped licensing our intellectual property but continued to use our inventions in its products,” PC Magazine reports. CNET notes that Microsoft has been “proactive” in pursuing licensing deals, currently receiving royalties from 70 percent of Android vendors. Motorola has promised users that it will keep its Android products on the U.S. market without infringing Microsoft’s patent, but has not yet disclosed how. Ars Technica and CNET speculate that Motorola will either remove or tweak the infringing technology in order to render the Android products non-infringing. Motorola has also filed an appeal of the ITC ban, according to the Seattle Times.

Posted On Jul - 23 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Judge Allows Aereo to Continue Providing Broadcast Television over the Internet
By Brittany Horth – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 12 Civ. 1540 (AJN) (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2012)
Slip opinion

Judge Alison J. Nathan of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a request for a preliminary injunction made by a group of broadcast television companies against Barry Diller’s Aereo, a system exclusively available in New York City that allows subscribers to watch and record live broadcast television over the Internet.

Judge Nathan held that the plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits in their claim that Aereo is liable for copyright infringement for publicly performing the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works but did show that they would suffer irreparable harm. Am. Broad. Co., slip op. at 36, 44. She explained that the plaintiffs likely would have been granted a preliminary injunction “but for” the Second Circuit’s reading of “the transmit clause” in 17 U.S.C. § 101 in Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008) (“Cablevision”). Id. at 1. (JOLT Digest has previously reported on Cablevision and its continuing significance.) Instead, she rejected all of the plaintiffs’ attempts to distinguish Aereo from the service at issue in Cablevision and concluded that the Second Circuit’s analysis in Cablevision was equally applicable to the present case. Id. at 21, 52.

A brief summary of the continuing situation is available at the New York Times. The Los Angeles Times features an analysis of the denial as well as the relevant precedent, including Cablevision and Sony Corp. of Am.  v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (“Sony Betamax”). CNNMoney provides a more detailed overview of Judge Nathan’s reasoning. CNBC offers Aereo CEO Chet Kanojia’s thoughts on the future of Aereo now that they have received this favorable ruling.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 23 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Revisits Patentable Subject Matter Following Prometheus
By Jeffery Habenicht – Edited by Dorothy Du

CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd, No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the D.C. District Court’s decision to grant summary judgment against Alice Corporation (“Alice”). CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd, No. 2011-1301, slip op. at 2, 6–7 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012). The district court had held that Alice’s patents were invalid for failure to claim patentable subject matter. CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 768 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.D.C. 2011).

The Federal Circuit held that Alice’s patents were patentable under § 101 because they were directed to “practical applications of invention.” Slip op. at 2. The court found that the “abstractness of the ‘abstract ideas’ test” set forth in Bilski II rendered the test overly “elusive.” Id. at 13–15 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010)). The court grappled with the difficulty of ensuring that overly broad patents do not unduly foreclose subsequent innovation, while taking care not to improperly ignore “meaningful limit[s]” on patent scope. Id. at 18–20 (quoting SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In order to address this difficulty, the Federal Circuit set forth a new test—perhaps better described as a presumption—for patentability: So long as “it is not manifestly evident that a claim is directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea,” that claim should survive a § 101 inquiry. Id. at 20.

In so holding, the Federal Circuit introduced another jigsaw-piece to the puzzle that is patentable subject matter. Given the Supreme Court’s recent interest in the topic, this opinion could serve as a vehicle for further clarification regarding the theoretical limits of § 101.

Thompson Reuters provides an overview and analysis of the case. Patently-O explores the differences between the majority opinion and the dissent, and suggests that the dissent may hew closer to Supreme Court precedent.
(more…)

Posted On Jul - 22 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Confrontation Clause: When Forensic Reports Are Testimonial Remains Unclear
By Heather Whitney – Edited by Charlie Stiernberg

Williams v. Illinois, No. 10-8505, 2012 WL 2202981 (U.S. June 18, 2012)
Slip opinion

In a fractured decision, the Supreme Court held that an expert witness could testify about a DNA test not entered into evidence and performed by a non-testifying analyst without violating the Confrontation Clause. However, with five Justices expressly rejecting the entirety of the plurality’s analysis, no majority agreed on the reasoning underlying the decision. Thus, lower courts continue to lack clear guidance as to when a forensic report is testimonal for Confrontation Clause purposes and, in cases where a forensic report is considered testimonial, which and how many analysts must testify. (more…)

Posted On Jul - 18 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

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

samsung-galaxy-phone

Popular Samsung Phon

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Saukshmya Trichi The US International ...

Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Kathleen McGuinness Two contested patent terms upheld as means-plus-function The United ...

icloud-security-risk-1024x426

Google Faces Potenti

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang Demand Letter to ...

ios-8-quicktype-vs-swype-580-100

Apple Provides Defau

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Travis WestApple announced that ...