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

Nintendo Wins Summary Judgment Based on Doctrine of Prosecution History Estoppel

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin

On July 17, 2015, the Northern District Court of California granted a summary judgment motion in Nintendo’s favor in a patent suit, construing disputed term in accordance with Nintendo’s interpretation and finding that the patent had not been infringed. The court based its decision on prosecution history estoppel, highlighting differences between the processes of obtaining and enforcing a patent.

Read More...

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...

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Yaping Zhang

3D Systems, Inc., v. Formlabs, Inc., No. 13-cv-07973-RWS (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 1, 2014) (order granting dismissal with prejudice) Slip Opinion hosted by Scribd.

Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages, 3D Systems, Inc., v. Formlabs, Inc., No. 0:12-cv-03323-MBS (D.S.C. Nov. 20, 2012) Complaint hosted by Archive.org.

On December 1, 3D Systems and Formlabs agreed to settle their two-year legal dispute over patent infringement. Terms of the settlement are undisclosed. 3D Systems sued Formlabs in 2012 for infringement of No. 5,597,520 Patent (“the ‘520 Patent”), granted to 3D Systems in 1997. 3D Systems at *5. The patent covered different parts of the stereolithographic three-dimensional printing process, which uses a laser to cure liquid plastic. Id. 5–11. The patent will have expired in 2017.

TechCrunch and Boston Business Journal overview the settlement. Gigaom analyzes its background and impact.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 21 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Sabreena Khalid – Edited by Insue Kim

91ea09a6535666e18ca3c56f731f67ef_400x400Following scandals earlier this month revolving around the use of personal user information, the 30 billion dollar tech giant, Uber, hired Harriet Pearson, former chief privacy officer at IBM, to “conduct an in-depth review and assessment of [the] existing data privacy program.” USA Today.

The public relations fiasco was sparked by one of the company’s senior executives suggesting that the company invest in opposition research targeted at critics, particularly at one journalist denouncing the company’s allegedly mysoginistic practices. BuzzFeed and ars technica provide further commentary and details.  The executive has since apologized for his statements. At the same time, the company took another blow when revelations surfaced that its New York general manager was accessing the Uber travel data of another journalist without her permission. Slate provides further details. Further, reports of the company using a “God view” tool to track customers’ location at a launch party resulted in a harsh letter from Senator Al Franken questioning Uber’s privacy policy.

Uber’s recent hire of Pearson is part of the company’s attempt to regain consumer trust in its business and privacy policies. According to BuzzFeed and Slate, the company has explicitly distanced itself from the acts of both officers, stating that it does not conduct any kind of opposition research on journalists, and that it restricts all employees’ access to driver or user data except for “a limited set of legitimate business purposes”.

The story brings attention to the larger and more pertinent issue of the handling and usage of personal user information by tech companies in the sharing economy. Uber’s privacy policy states that the app can gather and use users’ geo-location data for a variety of purposes, including “internal business purposes”. S. 1(b) Uber Privacy Policy. The privacy policy, however, does not define what these purposes are. So far, the company has reportedly used it for purposes such as tracking 30 of its most “notable users” to display an activity map at a launch party. It is reported that these users did not know their location coordinates were being used in such a way. Ars technica. Uber has also tracked a journalist’s location as she arrived at the Uber headquarters in New York, unbeknownst to her. Slate.  (more…)

Posted On Dec - 17 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Henry Thomas

S. Louis Martin vs. Google Inc., No. CGC-14-539972 (Cal. Sup. Ct. Nov. 13, 2014)

Order hosted by Ars Technica

A San Francisco court on November 13, 2014 dismissed a lawsuit against Google, treating Google’s search engine and third-party advertisement service as constitutionally protected free speech. The plaintiff, a website owner, had based its lawsuit on allegations that Google violated antitrust laws by treating the website unfavorably in its search results, and by withdrawing advertisement from the website. In throwing out the lawsuit, the court granted Google’s motion to apply California’s “anti-SLAPP” law, which allows a court to efficiently dismiss lawsuits against acts protected as free speech.

Ars Technica, Law360, and The Guardian provide an overview of the court proceedings. Slate welcomes the decision as acknowledging Google’s role as a media platform “curat[ing] information and present[ing] it to readers in a unique, customized order.”

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 9 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Saukshmya Trichi – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-146/13 Spain v Parliament and Council and C-147/13 Spain v Council.

Press release No.152/2014: November 18, 2014

European union concept, digital illustration.In an opinion released by the Advocate General (“Opinion”) of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“Court”), it has been urged that Spain’s challenges to two implementing regulations of the Unitary Patent System be dismissed. The Court is still deliberating on the challenges and the Opinion though not binding is likely to be of persuasive value.

In 2012, member states of the European Union (EU) agreed to create a unitary patent system, consisting grant of a Unitary Patent and establishing a Unified Patent Court, which would guarantee supranational protection for inventions in 25 countries across Europe. This system would co-exist with national patents and with classical European patents for states that do not participate in the scheme, such as Spain, Italy, etc. More information on the structure and functioning of the system is available on the website of the European Patent Office (EPO).

On December 17, 2012, Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 was adopted, which laid down the procedural framework to implement enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection; and Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 was adopted to create a framework with regard to translation arrangements.

In March, 2013 Spain challenged these regulations in cases C-146/13 and C-147/13 principally on the ground that the power delegated to the EPO for administering the unitary patent system was improper in view of the genesis of the EPO which functions by virtue of the European Patent Convention (EPC), while the unitary system is formulated under the aegis of legal system of the European Union. Spain also alleges that decisions of the EPO not being subject to judicial review will cause prejudice and further that limiting choice of language to English, French and German was discriminatory against states having different official languages.

(more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Jesse Goodwin – Edited by Michael Shammas

Doe v. Harris, No. 13-15263, 2014 WL 6435507 (9th Cir. 2014).

Slip opinion.

computer-typing1The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of Proposition 35, the Californians Against Sexual Exploitation (“CASE”) Act. In a unanimous holding, a three-judge panel found that, although California “has long required registered sex offenders to report identifying information,” requiring that they provide written notice of “any and all Internet identifiers,” slip op. at 5–6, within 24 hours to the police likely imposed an unconstitutional burden on protected speech. In so holding, the court noted that the plaintiffs were not “prisoners, parolees, or probationers,” and enjoyed full First Amendment protections. Id. at 13–14.

The Los Angeles Times and American Civil Liberties Union provide an overview of the case and analysis of the law.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), the CASE Act’s requirements provide that all sex offenders, irrespective of the level of their offense, must notify in writing law enforcement a list of all Internet user names and Internet service providers. Plaintiffs filed suit against the CASE Act the day of its passage, representing a class of registered sex offenders who used the Internet as a platform for anonymous advocacy for sex offender rights.  Slip op. at 7–8. After moving for a preliminary injunction, the official proponents of the CASE Act, Chris Kelly and Daphne Phung, intervened. Id. at 8. The district court, concluding that the Act was content neutral, applied intermediate scrutiny, and found that it was not “narrowly tailored [enough] to serve the government’s important interest in combating … human trafficking and sexual exploitation,” and produced a “chilling effect” on speech Id. at 9.  (more…)

Posted On Dec - 3 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Nintendo 3DS

Nintendo Wins Summar

By Yaping Zhang – Edited by Stacy Ruegilin On July 17, ...

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 ...