Top Internet Law Developments of 2019

27 03 2020

Technology & Marketing Law Blog
Eric Goldman
Jan. 7, 2020

It’s increasingly hard to find good news in Internet law, so I organized this year’s Internet Law roundup by categories of doom. Trigger warning: you should grab some tissues before proceeding.

Doomed (in a Bad Way)

Doomed: User-Generated Content.

Doomed: Print-on-Demand Services.

Doomed: Online Marketplaces.

Doomed: Internet Access Providers.

Doomed: Cybersecurity.

Doomed: Sex Workers and Sex Trafficking Victims.

Doomed: the CCPA. 

Doomed (in a not-terrible sense)

Doomed: “Must-Carry” Obligations for Publishers Who Aren’t State Actors. 

Doomed: the Roommates.com Section 230 Exception.

Doomed: Cases Against Social Media Services for Terrorist Content.

Doomed: the Liebowitz Copyright Litigation Machine.

Doomed: Politicians Banning Constituents on Social Media. T

Other

Online Political Content and Ads.

hiQ v. LinkedIn.

more

The content in this post was found at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/01/top-internet-law-developments-of-2019.htm Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Nintendo Dodges $10.1 Million Jury Verdict in Texas Order Invalidating iLife Patent Under Alice

27 03 2020
IP Watchdog
IPWatchdog
January 22, 2020
The U.S. District court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, overturned a $10.1 million jury verdict on January 17 against Japanese gaming giant Nintendo under the Supreme Court’s Alice test, which the High Court recently declined to clarify amidst confusion. In August of 2017, a Texas jury entered a verdict against Nintendo, finding that the company had infringed upon a patent asserted by Texas-based medical tech firm iLife Technologies Inc. The jury agreed that iLife proved that it was owed $10.1 million in a lump sum royalty for the sales of a series of games for Nintendo’s Wii U console. The jury also found that Nintendo didn’t prove invalidity of the asserted patent. In its analysis overturning the jury verdict, the district court reasoned that “[a]t its core, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of ‘gathering, processing and transmitting…information.’”
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/23/trademark-litigation-review-happened-2019-watch-year/id=118137/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Trademark Litigation Review—What Happened in 2019 and What to Watch This Year

27 03 2020
IP Watchdog
Nicholas Hawkins
January 23, 2020
Two things are true about the world of trademarks—it is rarely boring, and something is always on the horizon. The following are some of the significant trademark decisions of 2019, as well as two critical cases to watch as 2020 begins: 1. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti rejected the Lanham Act’s ban on offensive marks on the grounds that such a ban violates the First Amendment Right of Free Speech. The case involved clothing brand FUCT, which stands for “Friends You Can’t Trust,” and its founder, Erik Brunetti, who sought to register the brand’s name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO refused to register the name, determining it was immoral and scandalous. Brunetti argued to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that the mark was not vulgar, and that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. However, the TTAB affirmed the USPTO’s refusal and Brunetti appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/23/trademark-litigation-review-happened-2019-watch-year/id=118137/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Caltech wins $1.1 billion patent award against Apple and Broadcom

26 03 2020

ars technica
Timothy B. Lee
January 1, 2020

The nine-person jury in the US District Court for the Central District of California reached its verdict after a two-week trial, the Los Angeles Times and Law360 report. Apple and Broadcom plan to appeal the decision.

The patents claim irregular repeat-accumulate codes, a mathematical technique for encoding data that allows it to be reconstructed if some bits are scrambled during transmission. Error-correcting codes have been used in communications networks for decades, but IRA codes offered a better tradeoff between robustness and decoding time than previous techniques. Researchers at Caltech published a paper about the technique in 2000 and filed several patent applications around the same time.

more

The content in this post was found at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/caltech-wins-1-1-billion-patent-award-against-apple-and-broadcom/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Intellectual Property Outlook: Cases and Trends to Follow in 2020 — PART 2

26 03 2020

LexBlog
Robert Masters, Jonathan DeFosse & Kevin A. Ryan
February 3, 2020


PART 2: EFFORTS TO CLARIFY PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER § 101

In this four-part series, we take a look forward at the cases, legislation, and other trends that are likely to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and practice in 2020. The first part of the series – looking at IP issues currently pending before the Supreme Court – can be found here.

In this second part of the series, we look at possible developments in the law of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Since the Supreme Court’s decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), patent eligibility has likely been the single most confounding and controversial issue in the area of patent law. In this article, we consider:

  • The current state of patent eligibility since the decisions in Mayo and Alice;
  • Efforts to get the Supreme Court to address § 101 again;
  • The growing trend of avoiding § 101 issues through artful pleading;
  • Whether courts will return to a modified version of the “machine-or-transformation” test as a way to ensure patentability of “physical” inventions; and
  • Potential legislative “fixes” to patent eligibility.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.lexblog.com/2020/02/03/ip-outlook-cases-trends-2020-part2-patent-eligibility/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Why eBay v. MercExchange Should, But Won’t, Be Overruled

24 03 2020
IP Watchdog
Gene Quinn
February 16, 2020
As anyone who follows the United States Supreme Court knows, the Court has historically been extremely fond of taking important cases with cutting edge issues, only to dodge the real issues and address some insignificant procedural or hyper-technical issue. Such disappointment is all too frequent, so Supreme Court watchers are seldom surprised when the Court passes on an opportunity to breathe clarity into otherwise unsettled waters. But what the Supreme Court did in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) was far more disappointing. In eBay, the Supreme Court decided to throw out longstanding and well-established Federal Circuit jurisprudence and offered little or nothing in its place. The result has been an extraordinary shift in the balance of power between patent owners and infringers.
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/02/16/ebay-v-mercexchange-wont-overruled/id=118929/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Six Years After Alice: 61.8% of U.S. Patents Issued in 2019 Were ‘Software-Related’—up 21.6% from 2018

24 03 2020
IP Watchdog
Raymond Millien
February 17, 2020
As an update to my posts from 2017 and 2019, it has now been more than six years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Still, the IP bar awaits a clear and reliable test to determine when exactly a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.” The USPTO’s Section 101 guidelines interpreting Alice—and the accompanying 46 examples—have not cleared the confusion, and Alice continues to distract the USPTO, courts, and practitioners from focusing properly on Sections 102 (novelty) and 103 (obviousness). The net effects still being increased cost, lower patent quality, lower patent portfolio valuations, wasted patent reform lobbying dollars and, in many instances, the denial of patent protection for worthwhile software inventions.
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/02/17/six-years-alice-61-8-u-s-patents-issued-2019-software-related-21-6-2018/id=118986/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Broadcom Asserts Patents Covering ‘Crucial Aspects’ of Netflix Content Delivery

21 03 2020
IP Watchdog
Steve Brachmann
March 19, 2020
On March 13, American semiconductor developer Broadcom Corporation filed a lawsuit in the Central District of California  alleging claims of patent infringement against streaming media producer and provider Netflix, Inc.  . . .Broadcom is asserting claims from nine U.S. patents and accuses Netflix of directly infringing the patent claims through its Internet video streaming technology and indirectly infringing by inducing end users to infringe through their use of the Netflix software application
The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/03/19/broadcom-asserts-patents-covering-crucial-aspects-netflix-content-delivery/id=119946/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Patent Litigation Still Brings in Huge Awards

26 09 2018

Blawg It
Brett Trout

July 31, 2018

IBM’s intellectual-property licensing business, which owns over 45,000 patents, and which brought in nearly $1.2 billion in revenue last year put one more feather in its cap last Friday. The jury in IBM v. Groupon Inc., 16-cv-122 awarded IBM $83 million in damages. In what may turn out to be even worse news for Groupon, the jury also found Groupon’s infringement to be willful, allowing the judge to triple the damage award and order Groupon to pay IBM’s attorney fees.

Despite securing more U.S. patents over the past 25 years than any other company, and investing nearly $6 billion annually in research and development, IBM v. Groupon Inc. is the first patent infringement case IBM has brought to a jury in over two decades. Why has IBM been so reticent to bring patent infringement cases to a jury? It is important to note that IBM is not alone. Between 2013 and 2015 there was a 26% drop in the number of patent infringement lawsuits filed. And there was another 22% drop in cases filed between 2015 and 2016.

more

The content in this post was found at https://blawgit.com/2018/07/31/patent-litigation-still-brings-in-huge-awards/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico



Investing in Inventing: A Patent Process Primer for Startups

26 08 2018

IP Watchdog

Trevor Day & Neil Ferraro
August 25, 2018

The patent process is long and complex, but well worth the effort if it means protecting your invention and your new company. Key decisions made along the way can help simplify future steps in the process and make obtaining a patent significantly more efficient. Early on, determining a patent scope through patentability searches can help narrow a patent application to the important novel aspects that are most worthwhile to protect. Similarly, preparing a thorough provisional application can make the non-provisional application preparation much simpler and afford better protection against later published works or filings by others. By thinking about these key decisions ahead of time and being aware of the patent process, you can be more prepared when the time comes to seek protection for your invention.

more

The content in this post was found at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/08/25/investing-in-inventing-a-patent-process-primer-for-startups/id=100385/ Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post. and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com

Powered by WPeMatico