WASHINGTON, D.C. — An Illinois federal judge did not err in declaring four patents ineligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the invention is directed to the abstract idea of paying for public transportation with a credit card and lacks a sufficiently inventive concept, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Oct. 18 (Smart Systems Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, et al., No. 16-1233, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20333).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A limited exclusion order entered by the International Trade Commission (ITC) against Arista Networks Inc. based upon findings that Arista infringed three Cisco Systems Inc. patents was upheld Oct. 18 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found no error in the ITC’s determination of infringement (Arista Networks Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 16-2563, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Seven separate petitions for certiorari were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 28 appealing the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding the decision of the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify broadband internet service as a telecommunications service, with AT&T Inc. and others questioning the commission’s statutory authority to do so (AT&T Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-499, American Cable Association v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-500; CTIA—The Wireless Association v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-501; NCTA—The Internet and Television Association v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-502; TechFreedom, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-503; United States Telecom Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-504; Daniel Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-498, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A woman whose husband and son were killed in the July 2016 terror attack in Nice, France, filed a complaint in California federal court on Oct. 12 against Twitter Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., alleging that the three social network operators violated the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) by permitting terrorists, including the Nice attacker, to use their online platforms to carry out their terrorist activities (Kimberly Copeland v. Twitter Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-05851, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 16 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in which two men asserted that the term “google” has become generic and, thus, is no longer entitled to trademark protection (David Elliott, et al. v. Google Inc., No. 17-258, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 10 order list, the U.S. Supreme denied a petition for certiorari in a children’s pillowcase maker’s suit against Amazon.com Inc., declining to consider questions regarding an online retailer’s liability for the sale of a third party’s goods that infringe another’s patents or copyrights (Milo & Gabby LLC, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 17-287, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 4 amicus curiae brief, the U.S. government recommended that the U.S. Supreme Court deny Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s petition for certiorari in its dispute over smartphone technology patents with Apple Inc., arguing that an appeals court judgment affirming a verdict and judgment were properly reached and present no questions of law meriting high court review (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 16-1102, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 6 reply brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a small tech company argues that a $2 million attorney fee award against it was inappropriate and “create[s] a terrible precedent” because it was merely defending its “Dropbox” trademark against a larger company (Dropbox Inc. v. Thru Inc., No. 17-15078, 9th Cir.).
HARTFORD, Conn. — Investors have properly pleaded each of their state and federal securities laws claims against the co-founder of a virtual currency mining company, a federal judge in Connecticut ruled Oct. 11 in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss all claims against him (Denis M. Audet, et al. v. Stuart A. Fraser, et al., No. 16-0940, D. Conn., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167830).
ATLANTA — Appealing a lower court’s finding that a visually impaired man sufficiently alleged that its website’s purported lack of accessibility violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. tells the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an Oct. 10 brief that the statute’s accessibility requirements apply to physical locations, not websites (Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. v. Juan Carlos Gil, No. 17-13467, 11th Cir.).
BOSTON — The First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Oct. 11 upheld findings by a Massachusetts federal judge that a disgruntled civil litigant conveyed a nonexclusive license to the “Ripoff Report” website when he clicked a box acknowledging that a user who posts on the site agrees to give the site’s owner an “irrevocable right” to display the posting (Small Justice LLC, et al. v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Nos. 15-1506, 16-1085, 1st Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19866).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — After being fully briefed in a putative class action over alleged anti-competitive behavior by Apple Inc. related to its App Store, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Oct. 10 order list invited the U.S. solicitor general to file a brief expressing the government’s views on antitrust standing of direct and indirect purchasers, seeking input in considering Apple’s petition for certiorari (Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper, et al., No. 17-204, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A man convicted for computer fraud and misappropriation of his former employer’s trade secrets saw his petition for certiorari denied Oct. 10, as the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider his question about what constitutes access to a computer “without authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (David Nosal v. United States, No. 16-1344, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 10 order list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari by an online social media aggregator, which insisted that it had accessed users’ data on Facebook Inc.’s social network with their consent and, thus, did not exceed authorization under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (Power Ventures Inc., et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 16-1105, U.S. Sup.).
LOS ANGELES — After receiving adverse rulings for sanctions, contempt and a preliminary injunction, video-streaming service provider VidAngel Inc. saw three more movie studios join a copyright infringement lawsuit against it, with the Oct. 6 filing of a first amended complaint (FAC) (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-004109, C.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A visually impaired woman sufficiently stated her claims that CVS Pharmacy Inc.’s website is not equally accessible under California civil rights law, a California federal judge ruled in an Oct. 3 in chambers order, denying the drugstore chain’s motion to dismiss (Kayla Reed v. CVS Pharmacy Inc., et al., No. 2:17-cv-03877, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 5 order, a California federal judge denied a motion to dismiss breach of contract allegations levied by Yahoo! Inc. in favor of an earlier-filed patent infringement action pending in Texas federal court (Yahoo! Inc. v. MyMail Ltd., No. 16-7044, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165642).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 3 brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, LinkedIn Corp. seeks reversal of a preliminary injunction preventing it from blocking a data analytics company from collecting and reusing its information, contending that it did not violate California’s unfair competition law (UCL), while maintaining that the firm’s bot-scraping activities violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-16783, 9th Cir.).
GULFPORT, Miss. — In an Oct. 2 rebuttal brief supporting its motion to compel discovery related to its computer fraud counterclaims in a decade-old false claims suit related to Hurricane Katrina claims, State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. calls its discovery requests “straightforward,” while arguing that the counterdefendants failed to show that the requests are burdensome or cover privileged material (United States, ex rel. Cori Rigsby, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 1:06-cv-00433, S.D. Miss.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Oct. 4 order, the federal judge overseeing the trade secrets and patent infringement lawsuit against Uber Technologies Inc. granted plaintiff Waymo LLC’s motion for a continuance and delayed the start of trial until early December (Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., No. 17-0939, N.D. Calif.).