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

District Court Holds that Internet-Based Television Provider, FilmOn X is Entitled to a Compulsory License

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas

The U.S. District court for the Central District of California ruled that an online streaming service that rebroadcasted network television fit the definition of a cable company, and was entitled to compulsory licensing under § 111 of the Copyright Act.  The order relied on the Supreme Court’s Aereo decision, which held that internet streaming was fundamentally the same as cable. The ruling conflicts with a Second Circuit case decided on similar facts, and is immediately appealable.

Read More...

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

Data Breach Victims, Rejoice: Seventh Circuit Finds that Threat of Injury is Sufficient for Article III Standing in Data Breach Class Actions

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss

Last Monday, the Seventh Circuit Courto of Appeals ruled that victims of a data breach had standing to pursue a class action even when they had not suffered direct financial harm as a result of the breach or when they had already been compensated for financial harm resulting from the breach. The opinion reversed a contrary district court decision, which the Seventh Circuit said had incorrectly read the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

Read More...

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

How Far Can Law Enforcement Go When Gathering Email Evidence? Former Gov. Scott Walker Employee Files Petition for Writ of Certiorari

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss

Kelly Rindfleisch is serving a six-month sentence for misconduct in public office while working for then-County Executive Scott Walker. Rindfleisch appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the government violated her Fourth Amendment rights while searching her emails for evidence for a different case.

Read More...

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

Russia’s “Right To Be Forgotten” and China’s Right To Be Protected: New Privacy and Security Legislation

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ken Winterbottom

The legislatures in Russia and China took steps this month to tighten regulations over Internet companies with access to user data. In Russia, President Vladmir Putin signed a law ensuring a “right to be forgotten” reminiscent of the European Court of Justice’s right to be forgotten ruling of May 2014. And in China, the National People’s Congress released a draft cybersecurity bill that would formalize and strengthen the State’s long-standing regulation of websites and network operators.

Read More...

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

Washington Appeals Court Refuses to Compel Unmasking of Anonymous Avvo Critic Absent Evidence of Defamation

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

The Washington Court of Appeals held that—absent evidence of defamation—a third party website is not required to unmask an anonymous defendant. The court adopted an analysis similar to the widely cited Dendrite test for the showing a defamation plaintiff must make on a motion to compel disclosure of an anonymous defendant’s identity.

Read More...

by Marina Shvarts

Cameras Coming to Federal District Courts

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that on July 18, 14 federal district courts around the country will launch a pilot program utilizing cameras in court. The project, however, is taking small steps, subject to several restrictions. Cameras will only be allowed in civil proceedings with the consent of both parties. There will be no live broadcasts, and the trial judge will have non-reviewable discretion over which cases will be recorded and when the cameras must be shut off. The recordings will be publicly available on uscourts.gov. Uscourts.gov has a list of participating courts.

Administration Divided over Whether Recent Cyber Threats Constitute a ‘Cyber War’

According to NPR, the Obama administration’s disagreement over how to characterize the recent string of cyber attacks could complicate setting out a response strategy. Compromised information at Google, RSA and Lockheed Martin exemplifies, according to cybersecurity experts, “the most sophisticated hacking efforts ever perpetrated against private computer networks,” reports NPR. According to the pentagon, there is reason “worry about cyberweapons being used to cause actual physical damage.” The pentagon is characterizing the recent threats as a cyberwar. Howard Schmidt, the White House coordinator for cybersecurity, disagrees, stating that “to label every cyber-intrusion, every theft of intellectual property, as cyberwar is just a total mischaracterization of what’s going on in the world today.” Before the Pentagon releases a new cyber strategy, disagreements over how much to emphasize cyberwar scenarios will have to be resolved.

Professor Receives Tenure Based in Part on Wikipedia Contributions

According to the Wikimedia Foundation Community Blog, Michel Aaiji’s substantial contributions to Wikipedia were in part responsible for his award of tenure. Aaiji explained the various peer review features on Wikipedia, noting that articles posted there could be as rigorous as those published in more traditional sources. As other professors follow the lead, the status of Wikipedia contributions will have to be reevaluated.

 

 

Posted On Jun - 13 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Supreme Court Adopts “Willful Blindness” Standard for Induced Infringement
By Raquel Acosta – Edited by Matt Gelfand

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S. A., 563 U. S. ____ (May 31, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Supreme Court affirms the result but not the “deliberate indifference” standard used by the Federal Circuit.

In an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court held that, under 35 U. S. C. § 271(b), inducement of infringement requires that a defendant have knowledge that the acts they induced constituted patent infringement. Deliberate indifference does not satisfy the knowledge requirement, but “willful blindness” does. In so holding, the court applied the criminal law principle of willful blindness to a civil law case and rejected the “deliberate indifference” standard.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case. Patent Docs reviews the decision and criticizes the Supreme Court’s approach. SCOTUSblog briefly summarizes the holding and provides links to related briefs and documents.

(more…)

Posted On Jun - 10 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

by Michael Adelman

Copyright Suit Fails to Prevent Memorial Day Weekend Release of The Hangover: Part II

On Tuesday May 24, the New York Times reported that Judge Catherine D. Perry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied tattoo artist Victor Whitmill’s preliminary injunction that would have halted the release of the film The Hangover: Part II over Memorial Day weekend. Mr. Whitmill claims that Warner Brothers has infringed on his exclusive rights to the Maori-inspired tattoo which he designed and inked on boxer Mike Tyson’s face by putting it on the face of the character Stu, played by Ed Helm, in the film and promotional merchandise. Wired reports that the litigation has prompted an about face by the nation’s preeminent copyright scholar, UCLA law professor David Nimmer, who testified that tattoos should not be copyrightable while serving as an expert witness for Warner Brothers. Likelihood of Confusion noted that Judge Perry strongly indicated Mr. Whitmill stands to recover on his claim in the future, but that she declined to issue the injunction after finding the public interest in letting the movie be released outweighed the harm of infringement.

G8 Nations Issue A Statement on Internet Governance

Ars Technica reports on the recent G8 summit that produced a Declaration of Renewed Commitment for Freedom and Democracy, which extolled the power of the Internet in increasing democratic participation and as a driver of economic growth. The document emphasized the need to safeguard against “arbitrary or indiscriminate censorship” in preserving the Internet as a democratic forum. The G8 nations also announced their commitment to enhancing protections of intellectual property (copyright in particular) through greater international cooperation of governments and private entities.

New Legislation Would Make Unauthorized Internet Streaming a Felony

Ars Technica reported on the testimony of new Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallante, before the House Judicicary Committee about whether illegal online streaming should be upgraded from the current misdemeanor status to a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail. Pallante asserted that increased bandwidth and greater scrutiny of file-sharing networks have made video streaming sites that display pirated material increasingly popular, and that the law needed to be adjusted to keep pace with technology. This is also the position espoused by the Obama Administration’s White Paper on Intellectual Property Enforcement. But Techdirt warned that by making “performance” of a copyrighted work a felony, the proposed bill (via GovTrack.us) could potentially render the act of embedding or hosting an infringing video a felony.

Amazon Launches New Mac Software Store to Compete with Apple’s App Store

Amazon has recently launched a subsection of its online downloads store specifically oriented to Mac OSX software. Ars Technica reports that Amazon has called this service the “Mac Downloads Store”, probably to avoid another legal dispute with Apple. Slashdot has covered Apple previously filed lawsuit against Amazon for trademark infringement over Amazon’s ‘Appstore for Android’. ComputerWorld analyzes some of the differences between Amazon’s Mac Download Store and Apple’s Mac App Store, speculating that these differences are largely driven by differences in Amazon and Apple’s licensing agreements with software developers.

Posted On Jun - 6 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Heightens Standard for Inequitable Conduct
By Marina Shvarts – Edited by Dorothy Du

Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2008-1511, -1512, -1513, -1514, -1595 (Fed. Cir. May 25, 2011) (en banc)
Slip Opinion

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which found U.S. Patent No. 5,820,551 (“the ’551 patent”) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

The Federal Circuit heightened the standard for proving inequitable conduct with respect to both the intent and materiality elements. The new test requires specific intent to deceive. A finding of materiality must show that “but-for” nondisclosure, the claim would not have been approved. The holding was a response to concerns about overuse of the inequitable conduct defense and the harshness of the remedy, characterized as the “atomic bomb of patent law.” The case was remanded to the district court to determine whether defendants’ conduct was inequitable under the new test.

Patently-O summarizes the opinion. The Patent Law Practice Center discuses reactions in the patent community. Patent Docs discusses the dissent.

(more…)

Posted On May - 31 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Obviousness Determinations by the PTO and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
By Abby Lauer – Edited by Dorothy Du

In re Kao, 2010-1307 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), which had rejected patent application 11/680,432 (“the ‘432 application”) for obviousness. The Federal Circuit also affirmed findings of obviousness by the Board regarding patent applications 12/167,859 (“the ‘859 application”) and11/766,740 (the ‘740 application”). All of the patent applications at issue claimed controlled release drug formulations containing the opioid pain reliever oxymorphone.

In vacating and remanding the Board’s decision regarding the ‘432 application, the Federal Circuit held that the Board lacked “substantial evidence” in its determination that it would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art to combine the claims of a prior art reference with the controlled release oxymorphone formulation. In addition, the Board did not properly analyze the evidence of secondary considerations of nonobviousness that were presented by the patent holder. The Court agreed with the Board that both the ‘859 and the ‘740 applications were obvious in view of certain prior art references.

PatentlyO provides an overview of the case. Patent Docs provides detailed commentary and analysis.

(more…)

Posted On May - 31 - 2011 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Television

District Court Holds

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas Order: Fox Television ...

Neiman Marcus

Data Breach Victims,

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss Remijas v. Neiman ...

Magnifying Glass

How Far Can Law Enfo

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss State v. Rindfleisch, ...

Russia & China Cropped

Russia’s “Right

By Brittany Doyle - Edited by Ken Winterbottom The legislatures in ...

Avvo Logo Cropped

Washington Appeals C

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk Thomson v. Doe, ...