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

Federal Circuit Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Steven Wilfong

Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based on inequitable conduct

ITC’s ruling that uPI violated Consent Order affirmed

Court rules that VeriFone devices did not infringe on payment terminal software patents

Read More...

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

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Marcela Martinez

Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All Star design

French Court rules that shoe design copyright was not infringed

Oklahoma Court rules that Facebook notifications do not satisfy notice requirement

Read More...

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

Silk Road Founder Loses Argument That the FBI Illegally Hacked Servers to Find Evidence against Him

By Travis West  — Edited by Mengyi Wang

The alleged Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht was denied the motion to suppress evidence in his case. Ulbricht argued that the FBI illegally hacked the Silk Road servers to search for evidence to use in search warrants for the server. The judge denied the motion because Ulbricht failed to establish he had any privacy interest in the server.

Read More...

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

Trademark Infringement or First Amendment Right of Freedom of Speech?

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys

On October 11, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, urging  that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”. The brief argues that the use of the names of organizations to comment, critique, and parody, is constitutionally protected by the speaker’s First Amendment right of freedom of expression.

Read More...

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

Twitter goes to court over government restrictions limiting reporting on surveillance requests

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas

Twitter on Oct. 7 sued the government, asking a federal district court to rule that it was allowed to reveal the numbers of surveillance requests it receives in greater detail. Twitter opposes complying with the rules agreed upon by the government and other tech companies in a settlement earlier this year, and argues that the rules violated its rights under the First Amendment.

Read More...

By Caity Ross
Edited by Abby Lauer
Editorial Policy

In 2004, Fiona Murray and Kyle Jensen published a prominent article in the journal Science. They reported that the USPTO had issued 4,270 human gene patents for 4,382 distinct human genes. Approximately one-fifth of known human genes were claimed in a U.S. patent.[1] Beyond human genes, there are approximately 20,000 patents covering a wide range of naturally occurring DNA sequences.[2] Gene patents include “[n]ine patents [that] have been applied for on the genes which determine your eyeball, 40 on those for your heart, and no fewer than 152 on a single grain of rice.”

However, scholars and practitioners often question the scope and validity of gene patents on the grounds that genes are so essential to basic research. They claim that it is unethical to grant a private monopoly on genes, which should not be patentable subject matter or controllable by individuals.[3] The USPTO has declined to rule on this issue, treating gene patenting as matter of statutory interpretation.[4] Therefore, attempts to end gene patents generally aim to overturn court precedent or to advocate new legislation.

A recent decision in the ACLU-supported case Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. will help determine the future of gene patents in the United States. On March 29, 2010, United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet granted a summary judgment motion that invalidated patents on two genes. If upheld, this decision essentially eliminates patents covering all naturally occurring genes. For a summation of the opinion, see the Digest’s coverage. (more…)

Posted On May - 14 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Harry Zhou
Edited by Gary Pong
Editorial Policy

Libel litigation against bloggers has intensified in recent years as the blogosphere continues to experience rapid growth. The threats database of the Citizen Media Law Project (“CMLP”) shows that since 2000, there have been more than 310 lawsuits accusing blog and forum owners of defamation in U.S. courts. Often central to these disputes is the tension between the right to free speech and the need to restrict the rapid spread of defamatory materials on the Internet. The balance is particularly hard to strike when a plaintiff seeks a prior restraint, an extraordinary remedy that immediately enjoins the defendant’s speech at the onset of a lawsuit.

In December 2009, a New Jersey court issued such a prior restraint that compelled the complete shutdown of three blogs in Apex Tech. Group, Inc. v. Doe(s) 1-10. The order evoked keen debate among media law experts regarding the proper scope of prior restraints on Internet media such as blogs and forums. Kurt Opsahl, a senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), criticized the prior restraint for being “dangerously overreaching” in an EFF blog post. Vivek Wadhwa, a senior research associate at Harvard Law School, voiced his support for the takedown on TechCrunch, claiming that the EFF was “a tad overzealous” in defending the websites involved. Taken together, the two articles serve as an appropriate starting point for determining how much of a blog can be properly censored by a prior restraint under a defamation claim. (more…)

Posted On May - 11 - 2010 4 Comments READ FULL POST

It’s once again that time of year: The Digest will be taking a short break from our regular coverage over the coming weeks as our Staff Writers take their spring examinations.

While we take our hiatus from regular coverage, we have the pleasure of re-introducing our Comments feature. Comments are longer opinion pieces on especially significant issues. These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics they believe warrant closer examination and study. From now until May 16th, we will publish one or two Comments every week. We have some especially interesting pieces this May and we hope you enjoy them!

We’ll be back the week of May 16th with our usual coverage.

We sincerely hope you’ve enjoyed our work this year!

- The Digest Staff

Posted On May - 4 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Court Orders District Court to Reconsider Preliminary Injunction on “Catcher in the Rye” Sequel
By Katy Yang – Edited by Kassity Liu

Salinger v. Colting, No. 09-2878-cv (2d Cir. April 30, 2010)
Slip Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which had granted Salinger’s motion for a preliminary injunction for copyright infringement and unfair competition.

The Second Circuit unanimously held that the Circuit standard for granting preliminary injunctions in copyright cases, applied by the District Court, was inconsistent with the four-factor test “historically employed by courts of equity,” set out in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 390 (2006), which now replaces the original standard. Although eBay was about a permanent injunction for patent infringement, the Second Circuit also held that it “applies with equal force (a) to preliminary injunctions (b) that are issued for alleged copyright infringement.” In so holding, the court explained that eBay strongly suggests that its scope presumptively extends to injunctions in any context. The court also affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Salinger is likely to prevail on the merits due to substantial similarity between the two works and the likely failure of Colting’s fair use defense. Finally, because the Circuit’s original standard for granting preliminary injunctions in copyright cases has been changed to the eBay standard, the court found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue of whether the Circuit’s original standard is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

Bloomberg Businessweek provides an overview of the case and features a thorough analysis of the decision. The Am Law Daily and the New York Times summarize some of the legal issues in the decision. Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society submitted an amicus brief arguing that courts should consider more factors before granting injunctions, which can be found here. (more…)

Posted On May - 2 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Chinh Vo

Supreme Court to Decide on Law Regulating Sale of Violent Video Games to Kids

Wired reports that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether states may forbid the sale or rental of violent video games to children. The Court will review a ruling by the Ninth Circuit that struck down a California law, imposing fines for selling “patently offensive” or “morbid” games to people under the age of 18, on First Amendment grounds. Similar laws have been overturned in other states, including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Oklahoma. According to the New York Times, the decision to hear the case — despite general agreement among lower courts — suggests that some justices intend to reexamine how the First Amendment applies to depictions of violence.

Senators Attack New Facebook Features on Privacy Grounds

TechCrunch and Ars Technica report that a group of four U.S. senators is calling on Facebook to change its privacy policies following the popular social networking site’s launch of major new features last week. Democrats Al Franken, Charles Schumer, Michael Bennet, and Mark Begich, in an open letter to Facebook, warned that the Federal Trade Commission may get involved if the company does not take “swift and productive steps” to protect the privacy of user information. Their primary concerns were the “expansion of publicly available data” that users must opt out of sharing and third-party advertisers’ ability to store user profile data indefinitely. These features, according to the senators, create a “potential gold mine of data for unsolicited advertisements.” The senators also asked the FTC to provide guidelines for the use of private information by social networking sites.

Court Orders Aspiring News Blogger to Reveal Sources

A New Jersey appellate court ruled that a blogger must disclose the sources behind online statements she posted, Wired reports. Shellee Hale was sued for defamation after accusing software company Too Much Media of fraudulent acts against its customers. The statements at issue were not posted on Hale’s own blog, but rather in the comments section of a message board. The appellate court was not convinced by Hale’s defense utilizing a New Jersey shield law, protecting reporters from being forced to reveal their sources, because Hale is not a journalist. The court stated there was no evidence demonstrating conduct consistent with professional news reporting that would warrant application of the newsperson’s privilege. Hale produced no records of her interviews and did not identify herself as a journalist to sources. The court emphasized that “new media should not be confused with news media.”

Posted On Apr - 30 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Marcela Martinez Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...