A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Patenting Bioprinting

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas

Bioprinting, the3D-printing living tissues, is real and may be widely available in the near future. This emerging technology has generated controversies about its regulation; the Gartner analyst group speculates a global debate in 2016 about whether to regulate bioprinting or ban it altogether. Another equally important issue which this paper will explore is whether bioprinting is patentable.



More than a White Rabbit: Alice Requires Substantial Difference Prior to Embarking on Patent Eligibility

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West

On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first software patent case in thirty-three years. The impact of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank is broad but it appears to be a decision that was long overdue to address the many issues facing patentability of subject matter eligibility in various arenas where such issues are dominant.



Legal and Policy Aspects of the Intersection Between Cloud Computing and the U.S. Healthcare Industry

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom

The U.S. healthcare industry is undergoing a technological revolution, inspiring complicated questions regarding patient privacy and the security of stored personal health information. How can our society capitalize on the benefits of digitization while also adequately addressing these concerns?



Net Neutrality Developments in the European Union

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman

This contribution will consider current moves in the European Union to legislate net neutrality regulation at the regional level. The existing regulatory landscape governing Internet Service Providers in the EU will be outlined, along with net neutrality initiatives at the national level in countries such as Slovenia and the Netherlands. The new proposals to introduce enforceable net neutrality rules throughout the EU will be detailed, with comparison made to the recent FCC proposals in the US, and the extent to which these proposals can be considered adequate to advance the interests of Internet users.



Newegg Wins Patent Troll Case After Court Delays

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis West

The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently issued a final judgement for online retailer Newegg, twenty months after trial, vacating a $2.3 million jury award for TQP. TQP, a patent assertion entity commonly known as a “patent troll,” collected $45 million in settlements for the patent in question before Newegg’s trial.


Written By: Sounghun Lee
Edited By: Esther Mulder
Editorial Policy


Traditionally, a U.S. patent could only be infringed by activities performed wholly within the United States. In 1972, the Supreme Court held in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. that exporting domestically made components of a patented product for assembly abroad was not a direct infringement under U.S. patent law.[i] In an effort to account for the growing global marketplace, Congress has revised and expanded the definition of  “infringing activities” to include extraterritorial activities. This is reflected in 35 U.S.C. § 271, which generally outlines circumstances in which patents are infringed. In particular, § 271(g) provides the authority to enforce a U.S. process patent by prohibiting the importation of products made outside the U.S. that would otherwise violate the patent.[ii] It is important to note that § 271(g) only covers a patent over processes and not the products themselves.[iii]

In Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the defining case for § 271(g) jurisprudence, the Federal Circuit held that to have a claim under § 271(g), an imported product must be physical and tangible,[iv] without clearly defining which products are “physical and tangible”. This uncertainty is especially problematic with reference to new technologies. For example, it is unclear whether information contained in electronic signals is considered a physical and tangible product, and this leaves opportunities for infringers to take advantage of the gaps in case law. In light of these ambiguities, understanding the boundaries of § 271(g) is crucial in the age of advancing technologies and the burgeoning global economy. This Comment discusses the extraterritorial reach of § 271(g) and the shortcomings of the two decisions made by the Federal Circuit on this issue. Additionally, this Comment analyzes recent district court cases regarding the question of whether data or information contained in electric signals embedded in physical articles should be considered physical tangible products under § 271(g). (more…)

Posted On Sep - 6 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Jury Delivers $1.05B Verdict for Apple in Patent Case
By Jeffery Habenicht – Edited by Jennifer Wong

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., 11-CV-1846-LHK (N.D.Cal Aug. 24, 2012)
Jury Verdict Form hosted by SB Nation

After two-and-a-half days of deliberation, a nine-person jury returned a $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung for infringing six of seven Apple patents.  The jury found that, in 24 of its phones and tablets, Samsung had infringed on all three utility patents and three of four design patents that Apple had asserted.  The jury rejected Samsung’s defense that the patents were invalid. Furthermore, the jury found that five of the patents had been infringed willfully by Samsung.  Finally, the jury denied all of Samsung’s infringement counterclaims.  United States District Judge Lucy Koh presided over the trial and has scheduled a hearing for post-trial motions on September 20.

Bloomberg describes the case and explores the broader market context of the dispute.  Ars Technica analyzes the jury verdict.  Wired discusses what the effect the verdict will have on consumers.  Patently-O addresses the likely next steps for the case.  Groklaw takes the position that the jury verdict will likely be overturned, at least in part.


Posted On Aug - 29 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Michael Hoven

DOJ Seizes Domains for Alleged Piracy of Apps

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) seized the domains of three websites that allegedly offered illegal downloads of apps for Android mobile devices, reports the Wall Street Journal Law Blog. It was the first time that the DOJ had seized domains because of app piracy. Previous seizures (like the Megaupload seizure, previously reported on by the Digest) had focused on combating piracy of movies and music.

Oakland’s Police Radio Problems Caused by Interference from AT&T

Oakland police’s radio communications have failed several times since the city began using a new $18 million police radio system in 2011, reports Ars Technica, and the city and the FCC have determined that the source of the problem was interference caused by AT&T cellular communications. Radio communications were especially hampered when a police car was within a quarter-mile of an AT&T cell tower. In response, AT&T has shut down its 2G frequencies at 16 towers around Oakland.

Kanye West Not Liable for Copyright Infringement, Affirms Seventh Circuit

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement claim against Kanye West, Techdirt reports. Vincent Peters (who goes by the stage name “Vince P”) alleged that West’s song “Stronger” infringed on Vince P’s song of the same name. The Seventh Circuit held that there was insufficient similarity between the songs, despite each song’s reliance on Friedrich Nietzsche’s aphorism, “what does not kill me, makes me stronger.” The court noted that the aphorism had been used before by many recording artists, including Kelly Clarkson.

Posted On Aug - 26 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Written By: Jacob Rogers
Edited By: Jeffery Habenicht
Editorial Policy


On November 18th-20th, 2011, Major League Gaming hosted a Starcraft II tournament in Providence, Rhode Island, where over 250 professional players competed for a $100,000 prize. Starcraft and Starcraft II (collectively “Starcraft”) are a pair of video games set in a futuristic universe in which players compete against each other by controlling armies of humans with advanced technology or one of two alien races, the enigmatic Protoss, or the swarming Zerg.

This Comment addresses the legal ramifications of publicly broadcasted videogames used as a sport by analyzing Starcraft, one of, if not the most  powerful professionally competitive game. Section I addresses the background of real-time strategy games (“RTS”) and provides an introduction to the professional Starcraft industry. Section II analyzes the recent lawsuit and settlement between Activision Blizzard, Inc. and Korean Starcraft broadcasters and considers how it might have been resolved had it not settled. Section III recommends a change to improve copyright law in light of the unique characteristics of game broadcasting. I argue that Starcraft has transformed into a quasi-public good with governmental, corporate, and private stakeholders, which should limit its creators’ right to enjoin its use through copyright law.


Posted On Aug - 24 - 2012 2 Comments READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Patent Eligibility of Isolated Human Genes
By Jie Zhang – Edited by Jeffery Habenicht

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO, No. 2010-1406 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2012)
Slip opinion

The Federal Circuit, on remand from the Supreme Court in light of the Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., affirmed in part and reversed in part a decision by the Southern District of New York, which had held that isolated breast cancer genes and a screening method based on such genes were non-patentable.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that it had jurisdiction to hear the declaratory judgment case, finding that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge Myriad’s patents. On the merits, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and reiterated its prior holding that isolated genes were patent eligible because they were compositions of matter sufficiently different from the naturally occurring genes. The court also found that the method to screen therapeutics based on the growth rate of cells containing mutated genes was patentable as it included transformative steps and was more than a restatement of the law of nature. However, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that the method to compare gene sequences was non-patentable because it involved only abstract mental steps.

JOLT Digest previously covered both this case and Prometheus. Reuters provides an overview of the case and reports on reactions of the scientific community and the biotech industry. Patently-O criticizes the court’s analysis for ignoring the impact of Prometheus and predicts an en banc rehearing or a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court. (more…)

Posted On Aug - 22 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay

Patenting Bioprintin

By Jasper L. Tran – Edited by Henry Thomas “Patenting tends to ...


More than a White Ra

By Allison E. Butler – Edited by Travis West I. Introduction On ...

Prescription Medication Spilling From an Open Medicine Bottle

Legal and Policy Asp

By Ariella Michal Medows – Edited by Kenneth Winterbottom The United ...

Photo By: Razor512 - CC BY 2.0

Net Neutrality Devel

By Angela Daly – Edited by Katherine Zimmerman 1.      Introduction This contribution will ...


Newegg Wins Patent T

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Yunnan Jiang and Travis ...