By Elise Young
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Apple could proceed in its patent infringement case against Google-owned Motorola Mobility for two touch-screen patents. Apple Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm., No. 12-1338 at 2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2013). The court reversed in part the International Trade Commission’s findings that the patents at issue were anticipated and obvious. Id. If Apple prevails in its case, some Motorola devices could be banned from sale in the U.S. CNET provides an overview of the case while FOSS Patents discusses the technology and patents in more detail.
Bitcoin Is a Currency that May Be Regulated Under U.S. Law
Magistrate Judge Mazzant recently ruled that Bitcoin is “currency or a form of money.” SEC v. Shavers, No. 13-00416 at 3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2013). This determination was significant because it enabled the court to find that investments made by Bitcoin Savings and Trust were “investment contracts” and thus “securities” over which the court had subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 4. Securities include investment contracts, and an investment contract “is any contract, transaction, or scheme involving (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with the expectation that profits will be derived from the efforts of the promoter or a third party.” Id. at 3. For more general discussion of the case, see Ars Technica.
Federal Circuit’s Judge Plager Argues that Ambiguous Terms Should Be Construed Against the Drafter
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit panel issued three separate opinions in reversing and remanding the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota’s claim construction in a case of patent infringement brought by 3M. 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., No. 12-1241 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2013). In his concurring opinion, Judge Plager emphasized that the plaintiff’s “sloppy drafting” and frequently conflicting language put the court in the position of “crystal ball” reader, an arduous and nigh-impossible task. Id. at 2 (Plager, J., concurring). Judge Plager went on to advocate that the court adopt the “contract doctrine of contra proferentum” which resolves ambiguous terms against the drafter. Id. at 4.