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.


By Anne Woodworth

UK Court Allows Safari Users to Sue Google over Privacy Settings

Google lost a bid in the UK Court of Appeals to stop Safari users from suing the company over bypassed privacy settings. The plaintiffs allege that Google used a workaround to get past privacy settings in the Safari browser, allowing them to gather search and personal information without user knowledge. Google argued that the plaintiffs suffered no financial harm but the court decided that the misuse of private information could be classified as a tort and that the claims merit a trial. 

FTC Responds to Allegations that it Ignored Staff Recommendations to Sue Google

The accidental release of an internal FTC staff memo recommending a lawsuit against Google has prompted recent criticism of the agency commissioners’ decision not to sue, including allegations that meetings between Google and government officials improperly influenced the agency choice not to act. The leaked memo was part of a 19-month investigation and many commenters have emphasized that it is only a small piece of the overall picture. The FTC responded to the criticism in a blog post, calling press allegations misleading, and stating that the Commission’s decision was in accord with FTC Bureau recommendations.


Posted On Mar - 31 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Paulius Jurcys – Yaping Zhang

Order: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (denial of rehearing en banc)

Concurring opinion (October 22, 2014)

On March 23, 2015, Federal Circuit issued an order concerning the interpretation of willful patent infringement in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. Halo initiated the patent infringement proceedings and invoked section 35 U.S.C. § 284 which allows the court to increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed if the infringement is found willful or in bad faith.

The defendant, Pulse, argued that the patent was obvious and that they did not infringe the Halo’s patent.  However, the jury found for the plaintiff and also that “it was highly probable that Pulse’s infringement was willful.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Electronics., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00331-PMP-PAL, 2013 BL 219401  (D. Nev. August 6, 2013). The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court judgment and left a $1.5 million jury award for infringement to patent holder Halo Electronics Inc. intact. It also affirmed the decision not to enhance the award for willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Halo v Pulse is a stepping stone in recent trends in patent law to reduce situations in which the alleged patent infringer must face treble damages. In one of the recent cases In re Seagate Tech., the Federal Circuit introduced a two-prong test: (1) the patentee has to show, by clear and convincing evidence, “that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” If this objective requirement is met, (2) the patentee must then prove alleged infringer’s “subjective recklessness”, i.e., that the objectively defined risk was either known or should have been known to the alleged infringer. In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007).


Posted On Mar - 31 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Shuli Wang – Edited by Yaping Zhang

Two weeks after voting on regulating broadband Internet service as a public utility, on March 12, the Federal Communications Commission (”FCC”) released a document (the FCC Order and Rules) on net neutrality, which reclassifies high-speed Internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service, thus subjecting Internet service providers (ISPs) as common carrier to regulations under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. This allows the FCC to oversee potential discriminatory practices with regard to internet traffic. The purpose of the new rules is to ensure the free flow of bits through the web without paid-for priority lanes and blocking or throttling of any web content.

In addition to prohibiting blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of Internet traffic, the 313-page document details regulations and exceptions of protecting and promoting open internet. The FCC also reserves the power to decide many critical questions on a case-by-case basis. The release of the rules is appreciated by advocates for listening to Internet users and acting to protect the Internet from unfair discrimination by mobile and wireline ISPs. Moreover, according to a publication by Electronic Frontier Foundation, the FCC is credited for having adopted a positive approach with proper legal authority, bright-line protection, and forborn from the provisions that not necessarily protect net neutrality. Three Democratic commissioners who voted for the order expressed that: “today, broadband Internet access service is fundamentally understood by customers as a transmission platform through which consumers can access third-party content, applications, and services of their choosing”. Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, said: “We have created a playing field where there are known rules, and the FCC will sit there as a referee and will throw the flag.”


Posted On Mar - 23 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Lan Du – Edited by Katherine Kwong

13399-surveillance_newsAdministration Discussion Draft: Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2015

On February 27, 2015, President Obama released an administration draft of a proposed Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights Act. The proposed bill’s stated purpose is to “establish baseline protections for individual privacy in the commercial arena and to foster timely, flexible implementations of these protections through enforceable codes of conduct developed by diverse stakeholders.”

The draft bill is intended to act as a baseline privacy law to control all kinds of personal information and address critical privacy issues presented by the ever-increasing collection and use of private information. The proposed new framework is meant to fill in the gaps between existing privacy legislation, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Video Privacy Protection Act, which is scattered over different sectors and has inconsistent standards. President Obama previously introduced a framework of consumer privacy law in 2012.

At its core, the draft bill requires industries to develop their own “codes of conduct” on the handling of consumer information and charges the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and state attorneys general with enforcement The draft bill adopts a wide definition of covered entities, including any entity that “collects, creates, processes, retains, uses, or discloses personal data in or affecting interstate commerce.” Its definition of “personal data” is similarly broad, and includes most non-public data that can be linked to a specific individual or device. However, critics such as the New York Times editorial board express concerns about the broad range of exceptions not covered by the draft bill. These exceptions include de-identified data, deleted data, employee business information, and information used or disclosed to respond to cybersecurity threats. Several entities are also exempt as well, including businesses that have fewer than 5 employees or that process Personal Data from fewer than 10,000 individuals or devices each year. Businesses would also not be liable for violations in the first 18 months they create or process personal data.  (more…)

Posted On Mar - 23 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

UnknownBy Patrick Gallagher

Federal Circuit Affirms Denial of AT&T Motion to Extend or Re-open Filing Period for Appeal in Patent Infringement Suit


The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corp., affirmed a lower court denial of AT&T’s motion for an extension or reopening of the appeal period.  Two-Way Media LLC v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corp., 2014-1302 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2015).  After an adverse final judgment in a patent infringement suit filed against the company by Two-Way Media, AT&T failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and the period to do so subsequently expired.  Two-Way Media at 2.  AT&T claimed that, due to labeling errors on the part of the district court, it only first discovered that its post-trial motions had been denied after the appeal period had expired.  Id. at 3.  AT&T the next day filed a motion under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and (6) to extend or reopen the appeal period on the grounds of “excusable neglect or good cause” or a failure on the part of the court to provide adequate notice.  Id. at 3-4.  The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to extend or reopen the appeal period because it was the responsibility of AT&T to read the entirety of the original court order, accessible by hyperlinks included in the notices of electronic filings received by both parties, which would have clearly indicated the status of their motions.  Id. at 7-8.  Moreover, the Circuit held that 4(a)(6) only applies “when a party receives no notice of that order.” Id. at 12.  Read more here.



In Patent Suit Against Apple, Federal Circuit Affirms in Part, Reverses in Part

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part, vacated, and remanded a patent infringement case involving four patents owned by plaintiff MobileMedia Ideas LLC.  MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc., 2014-1060, 2014- 1091 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2015).  The United States Disctrict Court for the District of Delaware found plaintiff’s claim 73 of U.S. Patent No. 6,427,078 (“the ‘078 patent”) and claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,070,068 (“the ‘068 patent) to be infringed and not invalid to which Apple appealed.  MobileMedia at 2.  The district court also found MobileMedia’s claims 5,6, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,253,075 (“the ‘075 patent”) and claims 2-4 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. RE 39,231 (“the ‘231 patent”) not to be infringed and claims 5, 6, and 10 of the ‘075 patent to be additionally invalid. MobileMedia cross-appealed these holdings. Id.

With respect to Apple’s appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court judgment that claim 73 of the ‘078 patent is not invalid, but reversed the judgment that it was infringed and further reversed the judgment that claim 23 of the ‘068 patent is not invalid.  Id. at 37.  The court’s determination regarding the validity of the ‘068 and ‘078 patent claims centered on whether they were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the Global System for Mobile Communications standard, respectively.  Id.  With respect to MobileMedia’s cross-appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding that claims 5,6, and 10 of the ‘075 patent are invalid, vacated on the grounds of erroneous claim construction the judgment that that claims 2-4 and 12 of the ‘231 patent were not infringed, and remanded the case.  Id.



Federal Circuit Reverses DNA Sequencing Technology Patent Construction

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court construction of a patent claim by Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. and Yale University against Applera, vacated the lower court’s finding of infringement, and remanded the case.  Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., 2014-1321 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2015).  The suit involved the use of nucleotide probes to detect, monitor, localize, or isolate nucleic acids for the purpose of DNA sequencing.  Enzo at 3.  The ruling against Applera was based on a construction that construed the patent in question to include both direct and indirect detection of moiety.  Id. at 2.  The Circuit, following precedent from Phillips v. AWH Corp., utilized a textualist approach that looked to the “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term” as an ordinary member of the related industry would interpret it.  415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  In so doing, the Federal Circuit found that the district court had erred in broadening a key term in the patent to include direct detection in addition to indirect detection. Enzo at 14.


Posted On Mar - 23 - 2015 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 ...