By Michael Hoven
Apple v. Samsung Damages Award Cut by $450 Million
Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California, who oversaw last summer’s Apple v. Samsung trial, lowered the jury’s $1.05 billion damages award to apple by $450 million, reports Reuters. According to Koh, the jury used an “impermissible legal theory” to calculate damages. To fix the error, Koh ordered a new damages trial on fourteen of Samsung’s twenty-eight infringing products, to be postponed while the case is in appeal in the Federal Circuit. The decision is the latest of several post-trial victories for Samsung, notes Ars Technica, but the award still stands at $599 million and a new damages trial could add to that figure.
Yelp Review Can Help Show Consumer Confusion
The Middle District of Florida entered a preliminary injunction against the health club Fit U in a trademark infringement suit brought by the gym You Fit, according to the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. In considering You Fit’s claim, the court considered an anonymous Yelp review claiming the reviewer’s own confusion regarding the distinction between You Fit and Fit U. As Internet Cases reports, the court noted that, for a preliminary injunction, it could consider material not admissible for a permanent injunction, but the Yelp review did not constitute hearsay in any case.
ISPs Announce “Copyright Alert System” to Combat Infringement
Several Internet service providers (ISP)—including AT&T, Cablevision Systems, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon—stated that they would initiate a new monitoring and notification program designed to curb copyright infringement, Wired reports. The “Copyright Alert System” will monitor peer-to-peer file-sharing services and, as NBC News reports, implement a six-strike scheme of alerts culminating in service slowdowns or redirects. Record labels and movie studios have lobbied for the plan, which also has the support of the Obama administration.
Drug Testing of Welfare Recipients Likely Violates Fourth Amendment, Says 11th Circuit
The 11th Circuit upheld an injunction against the enforcement of a Florida law requiring drug testing of beneficiaries of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), reported Fox News and Courthouse News Service. Such drug testing was likely to be an unconstitutional search and Florida showed no “substantial special need” for the testing, according to the court, making an injunction appropriate. Despite this, bills that would require random drug testing of TANF beneficiaries were recently introduced in Maine and the United States House of Representatives.