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

By Jaehwan Park – Edited by Kayla Haran

Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Bill Encouraging U.S. Government Agencies to Use the Cloud as a Secure Alternative to Legacy Systems

Snapchat Accused of Violating Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Announces New Policy Group to Promote Global Digital Trade

Read More...

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

Second Circuit Prohibits Extraterritorial Application of Stored Communication Act’s Warrant Provision

The Second Circuit reversed a U.S. Magistrate Judge’s warrant ordering Microsoft to produce customer content stored in Ireland. The Second Circuit held that the warrant provisions in § 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, 18 USC §§2701-2712 (1986) (“SCA”), cannot be used to compel a service provider to disclose user e-mail content stored exclusively on a foreign server.

Read More...

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

U.S. District Court Denied TC Heartland’s Writ of Mandamus to Transfer Patent Infringement Suit

 

In April 2016, the Federal Circuit denied TC Heartland LLC’s writ of mandamus. Hartland requested the court order the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement suit initiated by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. In rejecting Hartland’s request, the court explained that a writ of mandamus is an “extraordinary remedy appropriate only in exceptional circumstances” and Hartland did not meet this bar.

Read More...

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

Congresswoman Speier’s Revenge Pornography Bill: Crossing the First Amendment Line?

On July 14, 2016, Congresswoman Speier proposed the Intimate Privacy Protection Act, a bill designed to make revenge pornography a federal crime punishable with up to five years in prison. Although the current version is narrower in scope than previous iterations, there are still some concerns that this bill violates the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

Read More...

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

Following an unfavorable verdict from a second jury and the Court’s denial of the first motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”), Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) filed a renewed motion for JMOL pursuant to FRCP Rule 50(b). Oracle’s second motion, filed July 6, 2016, claimed that “no reasonable jury” could find that Google’s “verbatim [and] entirely commercial” copying of Oracle’s code, in order to compete with Oracle, was fair use.[1] The motion will be heard on August 18, 2016.

Read More...

Icon-newsBy David Nathaniel Tan – Edited by Adi Kamdar

Software Pirate Settles Suit Via YouTube

A Czech software pirate known as Jakub F made an unusual deal with the Business Software Alliance (BSA) in order to settle a lawsuit: instead of paying damages, he simply needed to create an anti-piracy video that achieved 200,000 views. The BSA, which represents large media firms such as Microsoft, HBO and Fox, acknowledged that Jakub F could not afford the $200,000 fine and decided that awareness campaign would be a better “punishment” for the 30-year-old. At over a million views and growing, the video, starring Jakub F himself, has since gone viral. YouTube comments on the video ranged from solidarity to apathy to condemnation, with one user predicting that the “video will encourage people to start pirating as revenge.” News site TorrentFreak has provided a translation of the video.

After Paris Attacks, FCC Chairman Calls for Expanded Wiretap Laws

Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler leads an agency with a growing interest in cybersecurity. Last year, Wheeler told James Barnett, founder of the FCC’s Cybersecurity Division that he [Wheeler] does “not intend to be sitting in the chairman’s seat when a major cyber attack occurs, having done nothing.” Now, presumably in response to the recent Paris attacks, Wheeler has called for an expansion of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) to include more modern communications channels such as video game consoles. Whether or not Congress responds to Wheeler’s suggestions remains to be seen.

Hoverboards Declared Illegal in New York City

Back to the Future got it right (kind of): hoverboards exist in 2015. But before ordering one online, note that they don’t really hover and, perhaps more importantly, were just deemed illegal in New York City. The word hoverboard is a misnomer: these devices still have wheels, and as motorized vehicles that cannot be registered, are illegal under New York law. Hoverboards are popular, hands-free, rechargeable—and now come with a $200 fine.

Posted On Dec - 10 - 2015 1 Comment READ FULL POST

1271084_10152203108461729_809245696_oBy Mila Owen – Edited by Kayla Haran

Belgian Privacy Commission v. Facebook Belgium, Court of First Instance (Belgium), November 9th 2015. Judgment available here.

The Belgian Court of First Instance, acting in summary proceedings, ruled that Facebook’s practice of storing and processing personal data of Belgian internet users without a Facebook account violates the Belgian Privacy Act, and ordered Facebook to suspend the practice (effective November 11, 2015) pending a final judgment on the merits. The National Law Review provides an overview of the case, and the Wall Street Journal offers some context on the Belgian court’s ruling and Facebook’s European legal disputes.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 10 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Sikhs for Justice LogoBy Ann Kristin Glenster – Edited by Yaping Zhang

Sikhs for Justice Inc.(SFJ) v. Facebook, Inc. (N.D. Cal. Nov 13, 2015, Case No. 15-CV-02442-LHK), opinion available here.

On November 13, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California dismissed the New York-based organization Sikhs for Justice’s (SFJ) case against Facebook for allegedly blocking the group’s page from users in India. The case raised issues concerning the reach of federal anti-discrimination laws, and the role of global online providers as the social internet space increasingly hosts platforms for political speech. Yet, the Court maintained that the federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunized interactive online providers from liability arising from Title II of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, and in so doing, refused to dwell on the wider principles at stake.

As social media companies operate global sites, questions remain as to the potential extraterritorial reach of U.S. laws. SFJ argued that Facebook’s incorporation in Delaware and its California offices justified bringing a case regarding Indian users to federal court. Facebook asserted that not only did federal law not reach that far, but furthermore that the company did not provide public accommodation under Title II of the CRA.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Colette Ghazarian – Edited by Yunnan Jiang

Evidence of Prior Art Cannot be Excluded for Untimeliness

In Ariosa Diagnostics v. Verinata Health, Inc., 2015-1215, 2015-1226 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that evidence of prior art must still be considered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in its determination of the validity of the patent even if it is identified after the initial petition stage of an inter partes review. Ariosa Diagnostics filed a petition for inter partes review against patents held by Verinata Health related to prenatal testing products. Ariosa claimed that the patents were obvious in light of three prior-art references, which were not included in its initial petition. The references in question were contained in a brochure that was attached as an exhibit to an expert declaration. Ariosa claimed that the brochure showed the background knowledge a skilled artisan would have possessed about this particular topic. The Board declined to consider this document because, based on the language in its decision, it was not presented along with the initial petition and was only introduced at Ariosa’s expert’s deposition. The Court held that the Board’s decision not to consider the brochure was in error. It held that evidence of prior art can be considered by the Board even though it was not included in the initial petition for review. Since the Court could not determine whether the error was prejudicial or not, the decision was vacated and remanded to the Board.

Consent Decree Still Enforceable Even if Patent Later Found Invalid

In Delorme Publishing Company, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 2014-1572 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that the invalidity of a patent could not retroactively eliminate the liability and penalty of an infringer of that patent under a consent decree. DeLorne Publishing Company sued the International Trade Commission (ITC) over its decision to enforce a consent decree prohibiting DeLorne from importing “certain two-way global satellite communication devices, system and components thereof” that infringed on certain patent claims, or gave instructions for users to infringe on the claims. The Court first held that by selling infringing devices containing infringing components with instructions to infringe still violated the consent decree. Next, and more importantly, the Court held that the fact that the patent claims referenced in the consent decree were later found to be invalid did not eliminate DeLorne’s liability and the $6,242,500 civil penalty for its actions while the patent was still valid. In reaching its conclusion, the Court referred to Part 4 of the consent decree, which states “The Consent Order shall not apply to any claim…that has expired or been found or adjudicated invalid or unenforceable.” The Court argued that based on the language in the decree, if the invalidity of a patent were to apply to past infringement, then the inevitable expiration of the patent would as well. This would be an absurd interpretation of the consent decree. The Court affirmed the ITC’s enforcement of the consent decree and the civil penalty against DeLorne.

Description of Pros and Cons of Patent Features Not Required for Negative Claims Limitation

Federal Circuit precedent holds that negative claim limitations in a patent claim (describing a patent by stating what it is not) satisfy the written description requirements for patents when the specification describes a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. Santarus, Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 2015-1179 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2015), the Court extended this precedent by holding that “properly describing alternative features – without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature” – would constitute a reason to exclude the relevant limitation. In this case, Netlist, a manufacturer of computer system memory modules, amended one of its patents to include a negative claim limitation that excluded three types of signals from the description of its patent. Inphi argued that simply stating “DDR chip selects that are not CAS, RAS, or bank address signals” was not adequate under Santarus. Inphi argued that the phrase “reason to exclude” requires more than properly describing alternative features of the patented invention, while Netlist disagreed. The Court sided with Netlist, holding that Santarus did not create a heightened written description standard for negative claim limitations, beyond what is required by statute (35 U.S.C. § 112). All that is required to satisfy the written description standard of § 112 for negative claim limitations according to the Court are “properly described alternative features.”

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Italian FlagBy Shailin Thomas – Edited by Travis West

In October, Italy dropped its opposition to the European Union’s Unitary Patent legislation and joined the 25 other countries that have agreed to the regulations set forth in EU Regulations 1257/2012 and 1260/2012, bringing the Unitary Patent system one step closer to realization.

The Unitary Patent system seeks to streamline and simplify the current patent system in Europe.  Currently, each state issues and enforces its own patents within its jurisdiction, which means that patents must be obtained through each national patent office for Europe-wide protection.  It is possible to obtain a “European Patent” from the European Patent Office (EPO), but this is simply a bundle of national patents, which must be approved by their respective national patent offices — and those nations’ courts are the only available forums for enforcement.  This process is both lengthy and expensive, often costing around €36,000 to secure patent validation in all the EU member states, according to IP Watchdog. The Unitary Patent system would be a comprehensive and alternative process by which the EPO could issue patents that would be enforceable in all of the participating states. A specialized Unified Patent Court would handle litigation arising out of patent disputes.  By creating this single system for the issuance and enforcement of patents, the Unitary Patent legislation hopes to increase efficiency and consistency in intellectual property rights across Europe.

Until recently, Italy had been one of the strongest opponents of the Unitary Patent. Along with Spain, it challenged the legislation in 2013 before the European Court of Justice, claiming that the new regulations would prove detrimental to the social and economic cohesion of the European Union. The challenge, however, proved unsuccessful, and Italy did not join Spain in its subsequent unsuccessful challenge that claimed that the Unitary Patent’s translation policies are discriminatory against those who do not speak one of the system’s three official languages (French, English, and German), into which all patents must be translated.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
Unknown

Flash Digest: News i

By Jaehwan Park - Edited by Kayla Haran Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce ...

13399-surveillance_news

Second Circuit Prohi

By Filippo Raso – Edited by Shailin Thomas Microsoft v. US, ...

infringement

U.S. District Court

By Emily Chan – Edited by Evan Tallmadge In re TC ...

Senate

Congresswoman Speier

By Priyanka Nawathe – Edited by Henry Thomas H. R. Bill ...

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Oracle Renews Motion

[caption id="attachment_3907" align="alignleft" width="175"] Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC ...