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

Silk Road 2.0 Takedown Indicates Law Enforcement May Have Developed a Method to Trace Hidden Tor Websites

By Steven Wilfong — Edited by Travis West

The complaint filed against Blake Benthall, the alleged operator of Silk Road 2.0, indicates that the FBI identified a server that was used to host the popular drug market website, despite the fact that the website’s location was hidden by the Tor anonymity software.  Law enforcement may have developed a method of compromising Tor anonymity, a possibility that would prove useful in future operations, but that also raises concerns for legitimate users.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Ken Winterbottom

Motion to Dismiss in Hulu Patent Infringement Suit Affirmed

“Virtual Classroom” Patent Infringement Case Remanded for Further Determination

Attorney Publicly Reprimanded for Circulating Email from Judge

Read More...

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

Spain Passes a “Google Tax,” Analysts Predict it Will be Short-Lived

By Michael Shammas — Edited by Yixuan Long

Spain recently amended its Intellectual Property Law and Code of Civil Procedure to levy fees on aggregators that collect snippets of other webpages. It is at least the third example of a European government fining search aggregators to support traditional print publishing industries, a practice often labeled a “Google tax” because of the disproportionate impact such laws have on the search giant. Some analysts are already predicting that Spain’s new law will fail.

Read More...

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

Federal Circuit Tightens Patent Standing Requirement in Azure Networks

By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Sabreena Khalid

In Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, the Federal Circuit ruled that patent owners who had licensed “all substantial rights” to a third party could not be joined as plaintiffs in a suit on that patent. The court also reaffirmed the high bar to proving that a patentee has redefined a well-understood technical term.

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Viviana Ruiz

Russia’s Intellectual Property Court affirms denial of Ford’s trademark application

Contrary to its advertising efforts, Red Bull does not give you wings

Federal Court rules that food flavors are not trademarkable

Read More...

Federal Circuit Jettisons the Presumption of Irreparable Harm in Injunctive Relief
By Charlie Stiernberg – Edited by Abby Lauer

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp., No. 2011-1096 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which had denied plaintiff Bosch’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction, and remanded the case with instructions to enter appropriate injunctive relief.

Judge O’Malley, writing for a divided panel, held that the district court had abused its discretion in denying Bosch’s request for a permanent injunction of Pylon’s infringing windshield wiper blade products. Previous cases had not clarified whether the presumption of irreparable harm in the context of injunctive relief remained intact following the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). In Bosch, the Federal Circuit “put the question to rest” and confirmed that eBay “jettisoned” the presumption of irreparable harm in determining the appropriateness of a permanent injunction. Slip op. at 10. The court then held that the district court had erred in its analysis of the irreparable harm factor by relying exclusively on the presence of additional competitors in the market and on the “non-core” nature of Bosch’s wiper blade business. Id. at 13.

IPBiz provides a summary of the case. PatentlyO examines the decision and applauds the Federal Circuit’s recognition of patents as property rights when performing an injunction analysis. Patent Prospector criticizes the court for putting the injunction in place without remanding to the district court.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 20 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

District Court Permits Facebook’s Trademark Suit to Proceed Against Teachbook.com
By Albert Wang – Edited by Abby Lauer

Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com LLC, No. 11-cv-3052 (N.D. Ill. September 26, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied defendant Teachbook’s motion to dismiss a trademark infringement suit brought by social networking site Facebook.

Judge Aspen, writing for the court, held that Facebook had pled sufficient facts to survive Teachbook’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The court declined to consider Teachbook’s extrinsic evidence and based its holding solely on the content of Facebook’s complaint and exhibits. The court also rejected Teachbook’s assertion that the word “book” was too generic to sustain a trademark claim, noting that Facebook’s trademark registration covers the compound word “Facebook” and that the specific use of “book” as a suffix was potentially protectable. In so holding, the court noted that consumer confusion could arise because Teachbook framed its service as an alternative for teachers barred by work policy from using Facebook.

The Trademark and Copyright Law Blog provides an overview of the case. John Del Vecchio contemplates the consequences of this holding for other sites with the word “book” in their name, while Eric Goldman criticizes the court’s findings on generic terms and on the likelihood of consumer confusion.

(more…)

Posted On Oct - 20 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST
U.S. Signs the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)
By Amara Osisioma and Matt Gelfand – Edited by Andrew Segna

Text of the Agreement

On October 1, the United States — as well as Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea — signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (“ACTA”). Ars Technica provides commentary.

The press release by the signatories indicated that the Agreement was necessary because “the proliferation of counterfeit and pirated goods poses considerable challenges for legitimate trade and the sustainable development of the world economy. Trade in these goods causes significant financial losses for right holders and legitimate businesses.”

The ACTA provides for: “(1) enhanced international cooperation; (2) promotion of sound enforcement practices; and (3) a legal framework for [intellectual property rights] enforcement in the areas of criminal enforcement, enforcement at the border, civil and administrative actions, and distribution of . . . infringing material on the Internet.” (more…)

Posted On Oct - 20 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Heejin Choi

Report Suggests that NHS Pay for Organ Donors’ Funerals

A new report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, based in London, urges the National Health Service (NHS) to undertake a pilot study of paying for the funeral expenses of organ donors. This recommendation aims to increase the number of donors in Britain, which has half the organ donation rate of the U.S. and one of the lowest in Europe. According to CBSNews, co-author of the report Keith Rigg compares the proposal to the established practice of medical schools’ paying the cremation or burial costs of those who donate their bodies to science. The plan, if adopted, would be the first of its kind in the world. 

Mississippi to Vote on “Personhood” Amendment Next Month

As the Los Angeles Times reports, Mississippi residents will vote on November 8th on Proposition 26, the “Personhood” Amendment, which amends the State Constitution to define “person” to include “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” If passed, the amendment will effectively outlaw abortion in any case, even rape and incest. Concerns have been raised regarding Proposition 26’s other potential ramifications, including a possible ban on some birth control methods, some fertility treatments, and in vitro fertilization. Other concerns address the possible legal consequences that women early in and unaware of their pregnancy might face for partaking in activities that might put their fetuses at risk. 

Facebook Faces Multiple Lawsuits Related to Cookies

An increasing number of Facebook users are suing Facebook, claiming that it violated federal wiretap laws by using tracking cookies that record users’ internet browsing history even when they are not logged in, ZDNet reports. Both federal and state lawsuits have been filed by Facebook users in multiple states, including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi. All of the lawsuits allege that Facebook violated a provision of the federal Wiretap Act that prohibits interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. According to ABCNews, courts in the past have tossed out similar cases, finding that these cookies were not wiretaps.
Posted On Oct - 17 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Dorothy Du

Alien Dalvik allows Android Apps to Run on Apple and Other Products

Myriad Group, a software company specializing in mobile technology, announced the release of Alien Dalvik 2.0 on October 6, CNET reports. Alien Dalvik is the company’s port of the Dalvik process virtual machine found in Google’s Android operating system. Alien Dalvik, which launched earlier this year, enabled Android apps to be run on non-Android phones. Version 2.0 expands on the software’s versatility by allowing Android apps to run on still other types of devices, such as TVs, e-book readers, and tablets like Apple’s iPad, TechCrunch explains. According to Liliputing, the technology broadens possibilities for developers, who can now write Android apps and then use Alien Dalvik 2.0 to package the Android “APK” files and transfer them to other platforms with little need for tweaking.

Steve Jobs’ Successor Tim Cook Has Big Shoes to Fill

Steve Jobs, the drop-out genius and co-founder of Apple who brought us iPods, iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers lost his battle with pancreatic cancer on Wednesday, October 5 at age 56, the New York Times announced. Tim Cook, Jobs’ hand-picked protégé and the CEO of Apple since Jobs’ resignation in August, certainly has some big shoes to fill. In reaction to Jobs’ passing, Cook stated that “Steve leaves behind a company that only he could have built,” as reported by The Wall Street Journal Blogs. According to The Wall Street Journal, Jobs’ passing has raised questions about Apple’s outlook in the face of rival products, such as Android smartphones and the Amazon Kindle Fire tablet. Moreover, Cook’s unveiling of the new iPhone 4S on Tuesday received lackluster reviews, AFP reports. Tech bloggers at BBC News and elsewhere have since rescinded their harsh critique of the iPhone 4S, recognizing in hindsight Cook’s probable emotional state. In addition, many express high hopes for Tim Cook’s leadership. The Wall Street Journal reports that Gene Munster, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co, has said that “Tim Cook’s move to CEO has been flawless, not surprising given Jobs groomed him for five years to take the role.”

America Invents Act Only Pseudo “First-to-File”?

The America Invents Act, signed into law on September 16, has been hailed by many as the most monumental piece of legislation in patent law in decades. As reported by ipeg, the act changes the patent system from “first to invent” to “first to file”, thus putting the United Statesin line with most other patent systems around the world.. However, the switch to “first to file” may not be as straightforward as it first appears, Slashdot reports. Patent attorney Carlos Fisher of Stout, Uxa, Buyan & Mullins told Redmondmag for example, that “it is not clear whether  a prior use or offer for sale of an invention by an inventor…within a year of the date of filing would be render the invention unpatentable” by reason of prior art. According to Patently-O, the Act includes an exception to “first to file” in 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) that says that disclosures made by an inventor within 1 year of the filing date will not be considered prior art for the inventor, but would be considered prior art for later inventors. This glaring exception gives the first to invent and disclose precedence, thus rendering the new system merely pseudo “first to file.”

 

Posted On Oct - 13 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY 2.0

Silk Road 2.0 Takedo

  [caption id="attachment_4363" align="alignleft" width="150"] Photo By: archie4oz - CC BY ...

Unknown

Federal Circuit Flas

By Ken Winterbottom Motion to Dismiss in Hulu Patent Infringement Suit ...

GOOGLE_APTHDVR_1268416f

Spain Passes a “Go

By Michael Shammas — Edited by Yixuan Long Amendments to the ...

radio-wireless-tower-clip-art_resized

Federal Circuit Tigh

By Kathleen McGuinness – Edited by Sabreena Khalid Azure Networks, LLC ...

Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Russia’s Intellectual Property Court affirms denial of Ford's ...