U.S. and E.U. officials formally approved the “Privacy Shield” this week, a new agreement governing the transfer of data between Europe and the United States. The final adoption of the transatlantic agreement comes after several years of negotiations, which were accelerated last October when the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) invalidated a key part of the U.S.-E.U. “Safe Harbor,” an agreement that had previously enabled American companies to transfer data from the European Union without running afoul of its stricter privacy laws. (more…)
Patent Assertion Entity Not a “Patentee” By Itself
In Diamond Coating Techs., LLC v. Hyundai Motor Am., Nos. 2015-1844, 2015-1861 (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that Diamond’s agreements with the original assignee of the patent, Sanyo, did not make Diamond a “patentee” with standing to sue for infringement without joining Sanyo as a party. (more…)
Google Seeks Sanctions Against Oracle’s Attorney in Copyright Case
In the fallout of the case where a jury ruled that Google’s use of Java APIs in Android were covered by fair use, Google is seeking sanctions against Oracle’s attorney for mentioning previously confidential figures about Android revenue in open court. The attorney stated that Android generated $31 billion in revenue and that Google had paid as much as $1 billion to Apple to maintain the Google search bar on iOS devices. Those numbers are a huge insight into the operations of the open source operating system as a business and into how dense the network of agreements between smartphone manufacturers is. (more…)
The Supreme Court recently vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit’s decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 769 F.3d 1371, 1374–75 (C.A. Fed. 2014), in which the court denied enhanced damages for the patentee under the two-part test developed in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (2007) (en banc). See Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., No. 14-1513 (U.S. June 13, 2016). The first part of the Seagate test requires patentees to show by clear and convincing evidence that an alleged infringer’s behavior is objectively reckless. Id. at 5. “Objective recklessness” will not be found if the accused infringer “raise[s] a ‘substantial question’ as to the validity or noninfringement of the patent,” even if the defender did not act on the basis of the arguable defense. Id. The second part requires patentees to show by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged infringer had subjective knowledge. Id. (more…)
The American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) announced in June that it is challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (“CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (2008). In a suit against the Department of Justice, the ACLU argues that the decades-old anti-hacking law violates the First Amendment by preventing researchers from investigating whether computer programs are being used to discriminate against people by race, age, or gender.