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.pngBy: Chris Crawford and Joshua Vittor This article assumes a base level of knowledge about Bitcoin, bitcoin (BTC), blockchain technology, the Silk Road seizure, and the collapse of MtGox. For a helpful summary of how this technology works, see the first portion of this article, written by Matthew Ly of the Journal of Law and Technology. Bitcoin, and crypto-currency more generally, has risen in the five years since its launch from an academic exercise to what is today a multi-billion dollar ... Read More...
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.pngWritten by: Michelle Sohn Edited by: Olga Slobodyanyuk Emulsion: A mixture of two or more liquids that are normally immiscible (nonmixable or unblendable). -Wikipedia  I.               UberX D.C. as Case Study in the Local Sharing Economy If states are laboratories of democracy, then cities are the experiments. A new experiment has bubbled up in cities across the world, reaching a boiling point. The experiment? The local sharing economy. In May, amidst accusations that many of its users were violating New York’s ... Read More...
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Olga Slobodyanyuk

ICANN responds to terrorism victims by claiming domain names are not property

D.C. District Court rules that FOIA requests apply to officials’ personal email accounts

Class-action lawsuit brought against ExamSoft  in Illinois

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Applies Alice to Deny Subject Matter Eligibility of Digital Imaging Patent

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang

In Digitech Image Technologies, the Federal Circuit embraced the opportunity to apply the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice to resolve a question of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment on appeal, invalidating Digitech’s patent claims because they were directed to intangible information and abstract ideas.

Read More...

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

Unlocking Cell Phones Made Legal through Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act

By Kellen Wittkop – Edited by Insue Kim

Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act allows consumers to unlock their cell phones when changing service providers, but the underlying issue of “circumvention” may have broader implications for other consumer devices and industries that increasingly rely on software.

Read More...

Federal Circuit Holds that Typhoon’s Patents Are Valid, but Not Infringed
By Marsha Sukach – Edited by Andrew Crocker

Typhoon Touch Techs. v. Dell, Inc., No. 2009-1589 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the ruling of the U. S.District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which held that Typhoon’s patents that cover its “keyboardless” touch-screen computing system are invalid and not infringed.

Judge Newman, joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judge Prost, affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement and upheld its interpretation of Typhoon’s U.S. Patents No. 5,379,057 and No. 5,675,362. The district court construed Typhoon’s patent claim for a portable, keyboardless computer as “requiring that a device, to be covered by the claim, actually performs, or is configured or programmed to perform, each of the functions stated in the claim.” Slip op. at 9. In so holding, the court disagreed with Typhoon’s argument that a device need only be capable of performing the stated function in order to meet the requirement.

However, the Federal Circuit reversed the summary judgment of invalidity on the ground of claim indefiniteness, saying that the claim term “means for cross-referencing” is supported by a description of the cross-referencing algorithm in the specification. Id. at 19.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case. The Patent Prospector criticizes the decision, saying that it creates conflicting precedents. (more…)

Posted On Nov - 19 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on GPS Tracking Case
By Amara Osisioma – Edited by Andrew Crocker

U.S. v. Jones, 10-1259 (2011)
Transcript of Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, November 8th, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Jones to determine whether the police had violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights when they attached a GPS to his car without a warrant and tracked his movements. Though the police initially obtained a warrant for the investigation, it had expired when they placed the GPS on Jones’ car. Under the standard first developed in Katz. v. United States, Fourth Amendment protection extends to an individual’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.”

In applying this standard, the Court must determine whether and how warrantless GPS tracking differs from police tailing an individual by sight in public, which is not subject to Fourth Amendment protection. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, on behalf of the government, argued that regardless of the method used, police tracking of individuals in public places is constitutional. Yet, despite questioning from several justices suggesting that use of a GPS might constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment, Jones’ attorney, Stephen Leckar, instead tried to propose a narrow rule that the installation of the GPS was itself a search or seizure requiring a warrant.

Commentaries by the Center for Democracy & Technology and Professor Orin Kerr for The Volokh Conspiracy highlight the justices’ discomfort with the idea that evolving technology might render current constitutional protections insufficient, a scenario they repeatedly compared to George Orwell’s 1984. At the same time, SCOTUSblog notes that both parties’ inability at oral argument to suggest clear rules for guiding law enforcement’s use of surveillance technology frustrated the justices, leaving the outcome uncertain. The Wall Street Journal suggests that even a decision by the Court requiring a warrant in order to use a GPS tracking device may not change the limits of police surveillance because law enforcement authorities in most states can instead request access to a customer’s cell phone records for tracking purposes without a warrant and without the customer’s knowledge.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 18 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jennifer Wong

Twitter Ordered to Release Information in WikiLeaks Case

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has ordered Twitter to release information about three of its users who have possible ties to the whistle-blower site WikiLeaks, the New York Times reports. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) sought the information last year, but not with a search warrant. Rather, they ordered the information be revealed pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 (2006). The information includes Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses, which can be used to identify and discern the location of a computer used to log on to the internet. The three account holders argued in court that their IP addresses should be considered private, that the order suppressed their right to free speech and that the information was irrelevant to WikiLeaks. However, the court did not agree. In his judicial opinion, Judge Liam O’Grady expressed that the information was material to the DOJ’s investigation of WikiLeaks and that the users “voluntarily” revealed their IP addresses when they signed up for a Twitter account. The court also dismissed a petition to have the DOJ reveal its rationale for why it wanted the information. According to the Guardian, one of the users, Icelandic member of parliament Birgitta Jonsdottir, plans to bring her case to the Council of Europe. 

AOL to Pay $10 Million in Patent Infringement Suit

Forbes reports that a federal court jury has returned a verdict of 10 million dollars in favor of BASCOM Global Internet Services in its lawsuit against AOL. The $10 million is intended to cover unpaid royalties for AOL’s infringement of one of BASCOM’s patents. BASCOM is a Long Island-based company that creates Internet filtering software that is heavily used by educational institutions. In 2008, BASCOM brought suit against both AOL and Yahoo for patent infringement. While Yahoo settled with BASCOM, AOL decided to go to trial. According to Long Island Business News, BASCOM’s president testified that he had tried to negotiate licenses for the patent with several industry giants, but they declined because they did not think he had the means to enforce the patent. AOL has indicated that it will appeal the decision. 

Court Blocks FDA Requirement of Graphic Warnings on Cigarette Packaging

According to a federal court judge, new FDA requirements for cigarette packaging may violate the First Amendment by compelling speech, Reuters reports. The proposed requirements would have tobacco companies place large graphic images of adverse, smoking-related health consequences on cigarette packets. The graphic images include a man smoking out of a hole in his throat and a mouth covered in diseased lesions. Several tobacco companies are currently suing the FDA over the new requirements. Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary injunction allowing the companies not to comply with the requirements until after the resolution of the lawsuit. According to CBS, Leon expressed in his opinion that the graphic depictions went beyond mere warnings of the health risks of smoking and acted more like anti-smoking advocacy. He said that the new requirements were like advertising for the FDA’s “obvious anti-smoking agenda” and that the companies would likely prevail in their lawsuit.
Posted On Nov - 15 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Continues to Evade Addressing Intra-Circuit Split Regarding Claim Construction
By Katie Cohen – Edited by Albert Wang

Retractable Technologies, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., No. 2010-1402 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc of Retractable Technologies, Inc.’s patent infringement suit against Becton, Dickinson and Company.

Notably, there were two dissents filed in the court’s decision. Judge Moore, joined by Chief Judge Rader, expressed frustration that, despite claim construction’s critical role in patent litigation, the Federal Circuit applies its rules in this area unpredictably. Judge Moore would have reheard this case to address the role of the specification in construing claims. In a separate dissent, Judge O’Malley urged that rehearing en banc should have been granted to revisit and reverse the court’s decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc), which held that claim construction is a matter of law reviewed without deference to a district court’s conclusions.

Patent Docs provides an overview of the case. IPWatchdog and PatentlyO outline the nature of the court’s split on claim construction issues.  (more…)

Posted On Nov - 11 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Third Circuit Affirms Prior Decision to Strike Down FCC Fine for CBS Broadcast of Janet Jackson’s Breast During Super Bowl Halftime Show
By Abby Lauer – Edited by Albert Wang

CBS Corp. v. FCC, No. 06-3575 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier decision throwing out a $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on broadcasting corporation CBS for airing a split-second image of Janet Jackson’s exposed breast during the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show.

Reaching the same conclusion as it had in a 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit held that CBS’s broadcast was legal under the FCC’s policy at the time, which permitted networks to air instances of “fleeting” indecency without being sanctioned. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was arbitrary and capricious for the FCC to change its policy retroactively and impose a steep fine on CBS without notifying the network of the policy change. In reaffirming its 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit declined to change its position in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009), which upheld the FCC’s decision to abandon its safe harbor for broadcasted expletives that are not repeated. The Third Circuit stated that “Fox confirms our previous ruling in this case and that we should readopt our earlier analysis and holding that the [FCC] acted arbitrarily . . . .” Slip op. at 5.

SCOTUSblog provides an overview of the case. Ars Technica also describes the decision and discusses possible implications for future prime time broadcasts.

(more…)

Posted On Nov - 8 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay

The Silk Road and Mt

By: Chris Crawford and Joshua Vittor This article assumes a base ...

Photo By: Tristan Ferne - CC BY 2.0

Emulsification: Uber

Written by: Michelle Sohn Edited by: Olga Slobodyanyuk Emulsion: A mixture of ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Olga Slobodyanyuk ICANN responds to terrorism victims by claiming domain ...

color_profiling1-309884_203x203

Federal Circuit Appl

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang Digitech Image Technologies, ...

unlock_cell_phone

Unlocking Cell Phone

By Kellen Wittkop – Edited by Insue Kim On July 25, ...