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.


Employee Alleging Employer Accessed Quasi-Public Facebook Posts States a Valid Claim for Invasion of Privacy
By Charlie Stiernberg – Edited by Heather Whitney

Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp., No. 2:11-cv-03305 (WJM) (D.N.J. May 30, 2012)
Slip Opinion
(hosted by Justia.com)

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted defendant Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.’s (“MONOC”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Deborah Ehling’s New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (“NJ Wiretap Act”) claim, but denied MONOC’s motion to dismiss Ehling’s common law invasion of privacy claim.  Ehling, a MONOC employee, alleged that a supervisor inappropriately accessed restricted posts on her Facebook page without her consent.

The court held that Ehling failed to state a claim under the NJ Wiretap Act, because she did not allege that her Facebook posting was viewed by her employer “in the course of transmission.”  Ehling, No. 2:11-cv-03305 (WJM) at 4.  The court held that the NJ Wiretap Act does not apply to a received communication that is placed in “post-transmission storage” before it is “accessed by another without authorization.”  Id. at 4-5.  On the other hand, the court held that Ehling had stated a plausible claim for common law invasion of privacy, in part because she “may have had a reasonable expectation that her Facebook posting would remain private,” especially because she took steps to protect her Facebook page from public viewing.  Id. at 6.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog provides an overview of the case, and states that the key take-away for employers is “Don’t look for trouble or you just may find it.”  The Eric Goldman Technology & Marketing Law Blog notes that the number of Facebook friends with whom Ehling shared her post may end up determining whether the post should be accorded any privacy protection.


Posted On Jun - 16 - 2012 1 Comment READ FULL POST

USPTO Proposes New Rules for Micro Entity Status
By Jeffery Habenicht – Edited by Dorothy Du

Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status for Paying Patent Fees, 77 Fed. Reg. 31,806 (proposed May 30, 2012) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 1).
Federal Register

On May 30, 2012, the PTO published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register entitled Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status for Paying Patent Fees. The new rules, to be codified as 37 C.F.R. §1.29, set out the proposed requirements for attaining micro entity status. Although narrow in scope, micro entity status provides a significant reduction in patent fees for those who qualify.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), enacted on September 16, 2011, created the micro entity status. America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, §10 (2011) (codified at 35 U.S.C. § 123). Applicants qualifying as a micro entity would be entitled to a 75-percent reduction in fees. Id. §10(b). Although the AIA set forth a definition of what constituted a micro entity, id. §10(g), it left the specifics of implementation to the PTO. Accordingly, the PTO’s proposed rules attempt to clarify who qualifies as a micro entity and establish the procedures for claiming micro entity status, notifying the PTO of a loss of status, and correcting erroneous payments of fees.

On the whole, commentators have generally welcomed the PTO’s proposed rules. PatentDocs provides an overview and analysis of the changes. PharmaPatents explains that that proposed rules help clarify the AIA’s definition of micro entity status but raise questions about potential abuse of the higher education prong. Patently-O also mentions the clarifications provided by the proposed rules and notes that the PTO is seeking comments on whether “applicant” should be changed to “inventor” anywhere in the rules.


Posted On Jun - 12 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

California District Court Dismisses Oracle’s Copyright Infringement Claims Against Google, Finds APIs not Copyrightable

By Susanna Lichter – Edited by Jennifer Wong
Oracle America, Inc., v. Google Inc., No. C 10-0361 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2012) (hosted by Groklaw)

The U.S. District Court of Northern California in San Francisco dismissed Oracle’s claims that Google had infringed Oracle’s copyright in 37 application programming interfaces (“APIs”), holding that the particular elements duplicated in Google’s Android operating system were free for all to use under the Copyright Act.

Oracle filed the billion-dollar lawsuit against Google in August 2010, shortly after acquiring Sun Microsystems, Inc. and its interest in Java, the language used in Android. The suit alleged both copyright and patent infringement by Google’s exact replication of the names, organization, and functions of the APIs.

On May 23 a jury of ten unanimously found that Google did not infringe on patents held by Oracle. Two weeks earlier the jury had unanimously decided that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright in the APIs, but deadlocked on whether Google’s infringement qualified as fair use. Judge William Alsup resolved the copyright claims, finding that the APIs were not copyrightable to begin with. Oracle will be limited to collecting statutory damages for 9 lines of code that were copied from Java, the resulting damages of which may not exceed $150,000.

Wired provides an overview of the case. JOLT Digest reported on the patent claim and
Ars Technica interviewed Google attorneys Kent Walker, and Renny Hwang after the verdict.


Posted On Jun - 10 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Brittany Horth

United States Orchestrated Cyberattack on Iran’s Main Nuclear Enrichment Facilities with Stuxnet

Interviews with anonymous American, European, and Israeli officials, as well as outside experts, have revealed that President Obama ordered the acceleration of secret cyberattacks, codenamed “Olympic Games,” on Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities during his first months in office, reports the New York Times. The attacks were part of an Israel-United States effort to impair the development of Iran’s nuclear program. The order came after the cyberweapon, nicknamed “Stuxnet” by computer security experts, inadvertently became public in the summer of 2010. A programming error allowed it to escape the Natanz nuclear facility and compromise ordinary computers, prompting Obama to temporarily question whether the program should be shut down. The Natanz nuclear facility was nonetheless subsequently attacked by two newer versions of the Stuxnet computer worm that took out approximately 1,000 of its 5,000 centrifuges, but whether the attacks successfully slowed the progress of Iran’s nuclear program remains in dispute among experts and officials. “Olympic Games,” begun during the Bush Administration, raises the issue of whether such activity invites other countries to carry out cyberattacks against the United States, explains Ars Technica.

ABC v. Aereo, WNET v. Aereo Two-Day Preliminary Injunction Hearing Concludes

U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan heard opposing arguments from both television broadcasters and the online television service Aereo in a two-day hearing addressing the television broadcasters’ motion for a preliminary injunction against Aereo, reports The Hollywood Reporter. Aereo, currently available exclusively in New York City, enables subscribers to watch and record live broadcast television through an Internet service for $12 a month by assigning each subscriber to one of several tiny remote antennas in Aereo’s server room, explains Ars Technica and Bloomberg Businessweek. Television broadcasters sued Aereo in March 2012 and allege that Aereo is violating copyrights by retransmitting broadcasters’ programming without paying for the rights to such programming, while Aereo counters that subscribers are legally entitled to access broadcast programming via antennae that just happen to be remote.

Google Files Antitrust Complaint Against Microsoft and Nokia in Europe

Google filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission alleging that Microsoft and Nokia are colluding to raise the costs of Android mobile devices using patents that Microsoft promised it would not use against its competitors, reports Bloomberg. Google claims that Microsoft and Nokia transferred approximately 2,000 patents and patent applications to Mosaid Technologies last year in order to create “patent trolls” that can bypass the promise and engage in patent litigation that threatens manufacturers of Android handsets, reports Ars Technica. Microsoft and Nokia counter that the complaint is “desperate” and “frivolous” and note that the European Union is already investigating Motorola Mobility, which was acquired by Google, for its abuses of standard-essential patents alleged by Apple and Microsoft.

Posted On Jun - 5 - 2012 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Kentucky District Court Latest to Grapple with Warrantless GPS Tracking after Jones
By Sarah Jeong – Edited by Michael Hoven

United States v. Lee, Criminal No. 11-65-ART (E.D. Ky., May 22, 2012)
Slip opinion (hosted by TalkLeft)

The U.S. District Court of Eastern Kentucky suppressed the discovery of 150 pounds of marijuana in the defendant’s possession, due to the placement of a warrantless GPS tracking device on his car. The search and arrest took place prior to United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259, 2012 WL 171117 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2012), the Supreme Court case that ruled that GPS tracking constitutes a search and therefore requires a warrant. The United States argued in Lee that the agents’ actions fell under the good faith exception to the warrant requirement, but Judge Amul Thapar found that only reliance on binding appellate precedent could create a good faith exception for the police. In this particular case, in contrast, the agents had relied on a national Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) policy supported by non-binding appellate precedent from other jurisdictions. The Lee ruling attempts to articulate a clear and administrable principle for applying (or withholding) the good faith exception to pre-Jones instances of warrantless GPS tracking.

The Associated Press reports on the underlying facts of the case. Wired analyzed the conflicting case law on the good faith exception. (more…)

Posted On Jun - 3 - 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 ...