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.png

Google Appeals Ruling that Use of Java APIs in Android Violates Oracle’s Copyrights

By Katherine Kwong– Edited by Ashish Bakshi

On October 6, Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether copyright protections extend to the software’s “system or method of operation,” such as application programming interfaces (APIs). Google urges the Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s previous decision, arguing that allowing long-term copyrights on systems and methods of operations would stifle innovation and creativity.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ariane Moss

Microsoft Tax Banned in Italy

California Responds to Data Breaches by Strengthening Privacy Laws

EU Court Rules Embedding Is Not Copyright Infringement

Read More...

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

Google Appeals Ruling That Use of Java APIs in Android Violates Oracle’s Copyrights

By Katherine Kwong – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

On October 6, Google filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to rule on whether copyright protections extend to the software’s “system or method of operation,” such as APIs. Google urges the Court to overturn the Federal Circuit’s previous decision, arguing that allowing long-term copyrights on systems and methods of operations would stifle innovation and creativity.

Read More...

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

UN Report Finds Government Mass Surveillance Violates Privacy

By Olga Slobodyanyuk – Edited by Jesse Goodwin

The UN Report from the Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights found that government Internet mass surveillance violates Article 17 of the ICCPR by impinging individuals’ privacy.

Read More...

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

Functional Claim Elements Must Be Backed by Sufficient Structural Guidance

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Mengyi Wang

The Federal Circuit found that patent claim terms that offer no guidance to structure and are solely functional are means-plus-function terms and indefinite under § 112(f).

Read More...

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Insue Kim

HL Bill 37 – Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (“DRIP”)

Full text of DRIP

The House of Lords passed the bill without a vote on July 17, 2014.

The House of Commons passed the bill by 498 votes to 31 on July 15, 2014.

On July 17, 2014, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (“DRIP”) became law of the land after the House of Lords passed it without a vote. This legislation grants the government power to mandate all companies, both operating in the UK and abroad, to retain customer metadata for 12 months, so long as the companies provide telecommunications services to UK customers. DRIP also changes the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (“RIPA”) to expand the UK government’s ability to directly intercept phone calls and digital communications from any remote storage, including iCloud and Google Drive. Grounds for interception include national security and preventing or detecting serious crime. Prime Minister David Cameron introduced the bill on July 10, 2014 as an “emergency” law with an accelerated time frame. Parliament had a week to examine the bill, with a one-day debate in the House of Commons and two days in the House of Lords. According to the BBC, the purpose of the legislation is to replace legislation that became invalid when the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in April that blanket data retention breaches the right to privacy.

A summary of the bill and its history is available on the BBC and Human Rights Watch. NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden compared DRIP to the ‘Protect America Act of 2007’ introduced by former-President George W. Bush. Wired UK summarizes academics’ criticism of the bill. David Allen Green warns citizens of the danger of passing DRIP. The Guardian describes the harm in a more sarcastic and memorable way.

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 22 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Kyle Pietari Edited by Insue Kim

infringementVirtualAgility, Inc., v. Salesforce.com, Inc., et al., No. 2014-1232 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2014)

Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which denied a joint motion raised by Salesforce.com and other defendants (“Defendants”) to stay VirtualAgility’s (“VA”) patent infringement suit until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) could complete a post-grant review of the validity of VA’s patent under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM). This was the Federal Circuit’s first encounter with an interlocutory appeal from a district court’s ruling on a motion to stay infringement proceedings concurrent with the CBM review process, made possible by the America Invents Act (AIA), 125 Stat. 284 § 18(b)(2).

Reviewing the district court’s application of four factors that the AIA expressly requires courts to consider, the Federal Circuit held that the stay pending CBM review was improperly denied. VirtualAgility, slip op. at 5. Though § 18(b)(2) states that the Federal Circuit’s standard of review “may be de novo,” the court declined to address the question of when to apply a de novo standard, holding that the district court’s decision would be reversed even under the abuse of discretion standard that VA had argued for. Id. at 5. In so holding, the Federal Circuit sent a message that although a court denying a stay of infringement proceedings could be given deference on appeal, it should not expect to.

National Law Review provides a thorough analysis of the case. PatentlyO discusses the interplay between courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  

(more…)

Posted On Jul - 22 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Sheri Pan – Edited by Insue Kim

Fox Broadcasting Company, et al. v. Dish Network LLC, et al., No. 13-56818 (9th Cir. 2014) Slip Opinion hosted by DocumentCloud

On July 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Fox Broadcasting Company’s (“Fox”) motion for a preliminary injunction against Dish Network’s (“Dish”), “Dish Anywhere,” and “Hopper Transfers” services.  Fox argued that the technologies, which enable Dish subscribers to stream programming from portable devices as well as cache them for offline viewing on iPads, would irreparably harm Fox because they violate copyright laws.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not err in finding that the harm alleged by Fox was speculative.  It noted that Fox had failed to present evidence documenting such harm, even though the services had been available for several years.  The court also rejected Fox’s argument that it would lose advertising revenue, “in light of the evidence that advertisers are adapting to the changing landscape of television consumption.” Fox Broadcasting, slip op. at 4. Lastly, the court ruled that a preliminary injunction was not necessary because Fox had failed to demonstrate that allowing the services to continue operating prior to trial would induce other companies to follow Dish’s lead. It also added that any harm which did result could be adequately remedied with monetary damages.

Fox, in mounting the challenge, relied on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in American Broadcasting Company v. Aereo for support.  In Aereo, the Court ruled that Aereo violated copyright laws by providing broadcast programming to subscribers online.  Fox, in a letter to the court, argued, “Dish . . . engages in virtually identical conduct when it streams Fox’s programming to Dish subscribers over the internet [and] has repeatedly raised the same defenses as Aereo which have now been rejected by the Supreme Court.”

Jason Buckweitz, a researcher at Columbia Business School, however, noted that the Aereo case differs from the dispute at hand because Aereo had offered broadcasting content without paying for a license.  Dish, by contrast, pays retransmission fees to distribute Fox’s programming.  Under the Cable Act of 1992, broadcasters have the right to charge retransmission consent fees for redistribution of their content, 47 U.S.C. § 325, and they typically earn hundreds of millions of dollars per month from retransmission arrangements with cable companies.

Several commentators, including Mr. Buckweitz and Techdirt, warned that Fox’s reference to Aereo was only the beginning of broadcasters using the case to obtain more favorable deals with distributors.  More perniciously, they argued, Aereo could hamper innovation by threatening businesses whose services challenge the traditional avenues of content distribution.

Dish lauded the ruling and framed it as a victory for consumer choice.  Fox had previously lost a challenge to two other Dish services before the Ninth Circuit in 2013.

Sheri Pan is a 2L at Harvard Law School interested in the intersection of technology and public interest law.

Posted On Jul - 22 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Icon-newsBy Patrick Gutierrez

Senate passes bill to make cell phone unlocking legal

The U.S. Senate has unanimously voted to legalize the unlocking of cell phones, passing a bill that will now allow consumers to more easily move from one wireless carrier to another. The Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act not only permits consumers to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or civil penalties, but also urges the Librarian of Congress to “consider whether other wireless devices, like tablets, should be eligible for unlocking.” Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, the author of the bill, states that the Act will “promote[] competition in the wireless phone marketplace” by allowing consumers to “use their existing cell phones on the wireless carrier of their choice.” Joe Mullin of Ars Technica provides further background information on the legal history of cellphone unlocking.

ABA urges lawyers to stop pursuing file sharing lawsuits

In an exhaustive 133-page white paper released by the American Bar Association entitled A Call For Action in Online Piracy and Counterfeiting Legislation, the ABA has discouraged its more than 400,000 members from lodging lawsuits against those who engage in illegal online file sharing. The authors explain that “while it is technically possible for trademark and copyright owners to proceed with civil litigation against the consuming public who . . . engage in illegal file sharing, campaigns like this have been expensive, do not yield significant financial returns, and can cause a public relations problem for the plaintiff.” The ABA makes sure to point out the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America’s previously futile litigation campaigns against illegal file sharing. Eric Blattberg of VentureBeat notes that, as an alternative to legal action, the ABA proposes the “content industry spend its time educating the public on the negative impact of stealing content, like damage to the U.S. economy.”

FBI cautions that driverless cars may be used to assist criminal behavior

The Guardian has obtained an internal report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation that details some of the agency’s concerns with autonomous cars. The report, written by agents in the Strategic Issues Group within the FBI’s Directorate of Intelligence, states that “bad actors will be able to conduct tasks that require use of both hands,” such as firing a weapon at pursuant law enforcement as the car drives him or her away, or “taking one’s eyes off the road.” The report also discusses the possibility that driverless car technology may be used for “dual-use applications” or as “more of a potential lethal weapon.” This presumably reflects worries that hackers could access the cars’ systems remotely, or, as the Guardian notes, that “terrorists might program explosive-packed cars to become self-driving bombs.” Josh Wolford of WebProNews provides commentary.

Posted On Jul - 21 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Icon-newsBy Amanda Liverzani

Dismissal of Trademark Registration Opposition Affirmed Despite Pronunciation Error

In StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc., No. 13-1448 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2014), slip op. at 1, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) dismissal of StonCor’s opposition to the registration of a trademark by Specialty Coatings. StonCor previously registered the mark STONSHIELD for use in relation to epoxy coatings for concrete floors. Id. at 2. Specialty Coatings subsequently applied to register the mark ARMORSTONE, also for use with epoxy coatings. Id. StonCor opposed Specialty Coatings’ registration based on the likelihood of confusion between STONSHIELD and ARMORSTONE and because ARMORSTONE was merely descriptive of the epoxy products. Id. at 3. The Federal Circuit found that while the Board erred regarding the pronunciation of STONSHIELD, the error did not impact the legal merit of the Board’s decision. Id. at 7. John L. Welch of the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association provides additional analysis of the decision.

Non-Infringement of Cellular Network Patents Affirmed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware’s decision that Apple did not infringe cellular network patents held by Golden Bridge Technology in Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 13-1496 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2014), slip op. at 2. Golden Bridge Technology filed suit against Apple alleging that Apple had infringed upon two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 and 7,359,427, both of which described improvements to communications between mobile and base stations for a Code Multiple Access wireless cellular network. Id. The Federal Circuit found that the district court did not err in using the claim construction of “preamble” from a previous Golden Bridge Technology patent litigation. Id. at 5-6. For further commentary, see Law360 and Bloomberg BNA.

Federal Circuit Finds it Lacks Subject-Matter Appellate Jurisdiction Over Patent Infringement Case

In U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. ChemTreat, Inc., No. 13-1236 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2014), slip op. at 1-2, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that it lacked subject-matter appellate jurisdiction over a patent infringement appeal from the Minnesota District Court and transferred the case to the Eighth Circuit. U.S. Water Services brought suit against ChemTreat alleging misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Minnesota law. Id. at 2. After the initial complaint was filed, the Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent covering technology related to the allegedly misappropriated trade secrets to U.S. Water Services (U.S. Patent No. 8,039,244), and ChemTreat amended its answer to include counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity. The district court dismissed the trade secret misappropriation claims and granted ChemTreat’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Id. U.S. Water Services subsequently appealed to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit found that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) because, applying the well-pleaded complaint rule, the action did not arise under federal patent law. Id. at 3-4. See PatentlyO for more discussion of the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction analysis.

Posted On Jul - 21 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
how-to-draw-an-android-android-phone_1_000000008746_5

Google Appeals Rulin

Google Appeals Ruling that Use of Java APIs in Android ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Ariane Moss Microsoft Tax Banned in Italy In a case filed ...

api_icon

Google Appeals Rulin

By Katherine Kwong – Edited by Ashish Bakshi Petition for Writ ...

13399-surveillance_news

UN Report Finds Gove

By Olga Slobodyanyuk – Edited by Jesse Goodwin The UN Report from ...

PatentDraftingTools

Functional Claim Ele

By Asher Lowenstein – Edited by Mengyi Wang Robert Bosch, LLC, ...