A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

By Alex Noonan – Edited by Filippo Raso

California Supreme Court to Determine if Courts Can Require Non-Party Content Hosts to Remove Defamatory Reviews


Half of American Adults are in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Databases


Californian Residents Whose Data Were Exposed in Yahoo Data Breach to Bring Class Action Suit in California State Court




By June Nam – Edited by Ding Ding

The heirs of William Abbott and Lou Costello filed suit against the creators of a Broadway play, Hand to God for using—verbatim—a portion of the iconic comedy routine, Who’s on First?. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment but rejected the reasoning of the district court, which dismissed allegations of copyright infringement. The Circuit Judge, Reena Raggi, held that the use of the routine in the play was not a fair use under the Copyright Act of 1976. However, the heirs did not have a valid copyright to allege any copyright infringement.



Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Wendy Chu – Edited by Kayla Haran

Delaware Supreme Court Dismisses a Case For Lack of Online Personal Jurisdiction

California District Court Dismisses Trademark Dilution Claim Because of Limited Recognition

eLaw Launches an On-Demand Lawyer Service for Court Appearances




Federal Circuit Flash Digest

By Haydn Forrest – Edited by Henry Thomas

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016)

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. DirecTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. Sep. 23, 2016)

Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. Sep. 30, 2016)

Apple v. Samsung (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2016)




Massachusetts SJC Clarifies Probable Cause for Cell Phone Seizure


By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Ellora Israni


The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed last month a lower court’s decision to suppress information found on a cell phone seized without warrant or probable cause.


In allowing the Commonwealth’s appeal against the order of the Superior Court, the SJC considered two issues under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.


Queen's UniversityBy Kevin Crenny – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston, No. 2015-145 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2016), opinion available here.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, by writ of mandamus, reversed an order by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to compel production of documents containing communications between plaintiff Queen’s University and its non-attorney patent agents.

The Federal Circuit held that communications “relating to ‘obtaining legal advice on patentability and legal services in preparing a patent application’ will be kept privileged,” even if such communications are between a client and a non-attorney patent agent. In doing so, the court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sperry v. State of Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 (1963), hosted by justia.com, which had established that patent agents did practice law, albeit to a limited extent. The Circuit reasoned that protecting legal communications, even if neither party is an attorney, would serve Congress’ intent in establishing patent agents as an alternative to attorneys in this limited context. In so holding, the court established for the first time a patent-agent privilege, overcoming the general presumption against finding new forms of privilege.


Posted On Mar - 22 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Gia Velasquez – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

The Federal Aviation Association Implements a Mandatory Registration Process for Drones

The mandatory registration process of small unmanned aircraft (UAS) by the Federal Aviation Association (FAA) in December drew considerable speculation regarding the necessity of the registration process. Researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center investigated the risk of small drones on air traffic by studying the effects of wildlife collisions with aircraft and estimate that “one damaging incident will occur no more than every 1.87 million years of 2kg UAS flight time.” The study acknowledges that UAS may be more damaging to aircraft than wildlife, but conclude that the probability of a collision occurring is “at an acceptable level.”

The FDA Expedites the Review Process for Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs

The Food and Drug Administration has introduced an expedited review process for generic pharmaceutical drugs that would compete with an off-patent drug produced by a single company. When a patent expires, the patent holder can raise drug prices because of its exclusive hold on the market, making it unattractive for new producers to join. Estimating the change will affect as many as 125 generic drugs, the FDA hopes to foil plans of drug manufacturers such as Martin Shkreli, the former CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, who famously increased the price of an antiparasitic drug tablet from $13.50 to $750.

Senate Rejects GMO Labeling Bill

The Senate rejected a bill that would have established voluntary labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). Democrat Senator Jon Tester and organic farmer from Montana called the bill a “bad, bad, bad policy” because the voluntary standards “are no standards at all.” If it had passed, the bill would have preempted Vermont’s mandatory GMO labeling law, which is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2016. Though GMO labeling is a highly disputed issue, General Mills received no sales benefit from labeling Cheerios® as GMO-free.

Posted On Mar - 22 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST


By Ann Kristin Glenster – Edited by David Nathaniel Tan


On October 6, 2015, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered another landmark ruling concerning the handling of personal data by U.S. companies in Europe.[1]Responding to a request from the Irish High Court,[2] the CJEU held that the Safe Harbor Agreement (the “Agreement”), under which companies like Facebook were able to legally transmit personal data from their European subscribers to the U.S., was invalid. This article will give a brief overview of the Agreement and the case, and explore some of the salient issues to which the European Court took umbrage. Finally, it will attempt to sketch out some possible consequences of the ruling, and the options that now face E.U. and U.S. legislators.

According to the CJEU, the Safe Harbor Principles did not provide adequate safeguards as required by the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) (the “Directive”). The decision has led to a flurry of activity on both shores of the Atlantic. On November 3, barely a month after the judgement was announced, it was the hot topic of debate at a House Communications Subcommittee of Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade meeting. Microsoft, Apple and Oracle, among others, urged U.S. legislators to take swift action as “trillions of dollars in global GDP were at stake.”[3]

The CJEU decision has left U.S companies in a quandary as to how they may demonstrate their compliance with European law in handling foreign customer data, as they wait for rescue by Safe Harbor 2.0.[4] But so far, signals are weak that a new Safe Harbor Agreement can provide the much sought-after shelter for personal data making the journey across the Atlantic. (more…)

Posted On Jan - 4 - 2016 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Fed. Cir. Flash DigestBy Yiran Zhang – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk

Senators Introduce a Bill which Requires Social Media Companies to Report Terrorist Activity

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Richard Burr have introduced legislation that would require social media and other technology companies to report online terrorist activity they become aware of to law enforcement. The proposed legislature does not require companies to take additional actions other than to report the information such as attack planning, recruitment, or distribution of terrorist material if companies become aware of terrorist activity. Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden opposed the bill, reasoning that the it “would create a perverse incentive for companies to avoid looking for terrorist content on their own networks”.

New EU Copyright Rules Left Possibility for Google Tax

The European Commission’s new “modern, more European” copyright framework left the possibility for the introduction of a new ancillary copyright that would require people to pay a licensing fee for the use of short snippets online, also known as the “Google tax”. The  document describing the Commission’s plans  raises concerns about the fragmentation in EU digital market, referring to individual EU Member States such as Germany and Spain’s attempts to require search engines—particularly Google—to pay publishers for using snippets from their publications in search results.  The framework, however, ruled out a tax on hyperlinks. The framework wants to bring in cross-border portability, instead of its earlier, more expansive promise to stop unjustified geo-blocking. The regulation on cross-border portability is expended to come into force in 2017, without needing any further legislation. As part of the new copyright framework, the Commission also wants to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty, figure out the freedom of panorama issue, and disrupt commercial scale copyright infringement activities. It has launched a public consultation of this legal framework, open for comments until April 1, 2016.

COP21 Reached an “Ambitious and Balanced” Deal on Climate Change

On December 12, the 21st Conference of Parties, or COP21, issued a final draft of the climate change agreement, which the French foreign minister Laurent Fabius described as “fair and legally binding.” If adopted, the agreement would set an ambitious goal of halting average warming at no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures—and of striving for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible. It sets up a bottom-up system in which each country sets its own goal of greenhouse gas emission reduction, or “nationally determined contribution” as called in the agreement. Bill McKibben, the co-founder of 350.org, said that the agreement “may have saved the chance of saving the planet”, with a cautious optimism typical among environmental activists.

Posted On Dec - 16 - 2015 Comments Off READ FULL POST

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
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Flash Digest: News i

By Alex Noonan – Edited by Filippo Raso California Supreme Court ...


Second Circuit Holds

June Nam - Edited by Ding Ding TCA Television Corp. v. ...

Fed. Cir. Flash Digest

Flash Digest: News i

By Wendy Chu - Edited by Kayla Haran Delaware Supreme Court ...


Federal Circuit Flas

By Haydn Forrest - Edited by Henry Thomas Affinity Labs of ...


Massachusetts SJC Cl

By Nehaa Chaudhari – Edited by Ellora Israni Commonwealth v. Onyx ...