SAN FRANCISCO — Efforts by SAP SE to obtain dismissal of allegations of copyright infringement allegations were unsuccessful Dec. 12, when a California federal judge deemed the claims adequately pleaded; in the same ruling, however, the judge agreed to dismiss allegations of trade secret misappropriation, upon finding that the asserted trade secrets are not sufficiently identified (Teradata Corp., et al. v. SAP SE, et al., No. 18-3670, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209872).
NEW YORK — The Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 12 agreed with a New York federal judge that a digital music resale service infringes the recording industry’s exclusive right to reproduce copyrighted works under Section 106(1) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 106(1) (Capitol Records LLC, et al. v. ReDigi Inc., et al., No. 16-2321, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34914).
ORLANDO, Fla. — Granting a health services corporation’s motion for summary judgment on Dec. 7, a Florida federal judge found that a legally blind man’s discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) over the firm’s purportedly inaccessible website failed for lack of evidence that he had patronized the company in the past or had concrete plans to do so in the future (Joel Price v. Orlando Health Inc., No. 6:17-cv-01999, M.D. Fla., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206890).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Dec. 11 petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Mindgeek USA Inc. took aim at a University of Southern California patent asserted by a licensee first asserted against Mindgeek in 2014 (Mindgeek USA Inc. v. University of Southern California and Preservation Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-00423, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Dec. 11 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. showed by a preponderance of the evidence that 20 claims of a Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. patent relating to cell reselection would have been obvious (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., No. IPR2017-01474, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — With remand instructions from the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the proper standard for considering attorney fees awards under the Lanham Act, a Virginia federal judge on Nov. 28 denied an internet domain registrar’s fees motion for a second time, determining that although the defendant prevailed on the false advertising claims brought by Verisign Inc., it did not establish that the case was exceptional (Verisign Inc. v. XYZ.com LLC, et al., No. 1:14-cv-01749, E.D. Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203037).
SAN FRANCISCO — A terror attack survivor’s claims against Twitter Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google LLC under the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) were dismissed with prejudice Nov. 29, with a California federal judge finding that she failed to establish proximate cause or knowing and substantial assistance by the social networks related to the 2016 Nice, France, terror attack (Kimberly Copeland v. Twitter Inc., et al., No. 3:17-cv-05851, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202669).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 7 granted without comment a joint motion by YouTube LLC and a rasta band to voluntarily dismiss the band’s appeal of a judgment against it in a lawsuit alleging libel related to the video-sharing website’s decision to remove the band’s music video (Song fi Inc., et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 18-16102, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34561).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A continued effort by a patent owner to assert that a prior art reference does not qualify as a printed publication within the meaning of Section 102 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), was rebuffed Dec. 10 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2017-2490, -2494, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two weeks after filing a brief supporting petitioner Rimini Street Inc. in a dispute over the award of nontaxable costs in an underlying software copyright lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 6 for leave to participate in upcoming oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
TEXARKANA, Texas — Alleging a horizontal conspiracy in the online travel-booking industry, an online travel agency (OTA) filed a complaint in Texas federal court Dec. 6 against eight hotel chains that it claims have agreed to not bid on each other’s branded keywords on internet search engines, thus destroying a competitive marketplace and violating the Sherman Act (TravelPass Group LLC, et al. v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 5:18-cv-00153, E.D. Texas).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. —The operators of several travel websites on Dec. 6 requested institution of inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of an International Business Machines patent directed to a method of providing users with a single-sign-on in a federated computing environment (Expedia Inc., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. IPR2019-00404, PTAB).
SEATTLE — Claiming that two defendant firearm rights organizations have violated a Washington federal court’s injunction against the dissemination of 3D-printable gun plans, a group of U.S. states in a Dec. 4 motion asks the court to compel the groups to respond to discovery requests aimed at uncovering the defendants’ post-injunction actions (Washington, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 2:18-cv-01115, W.D. Wash.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Dec. 4 instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent directed to a camera lens assembly (Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. IPR2018-01140, PTAB).
BOSTON — Citing the existence of genuine disputes of material fact, a Massachusetts federal judge on Dec. 3 denied a request for partial summary judgment on the question of patent inventorship, reserving the issue for a bench trial slated to begin Jan. 2 (Egenera Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 16-11613, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204092).
PORTLAND, Maine — On Dec. 4, hours after docketing a complaint for trademark infringement, a Maine federal judge entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case, enjoining a defendant from using any trademark, logo, design or source designation online that is a copy, reproduction, colorable imitation or simulation of a plaintiff’s trademarks, trade dress and logos (Symetra Life Insurance Co. v. Guy Emerson, No. 18-492, D. Maine, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205039).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida man who appealed the standard for dismissing his copyright infringement suit against Apple Inc. saw his petition for certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court Dec. 3, leaving a judgment against the pro se litigant in tact (Thomas S. Ross v. Apple Inc., No. 18-494, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 7142).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The provider of an online media-monitoring service saw its petition for certiorari denied in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dec. 3 order list, leaving its question about the transformative use of copyrighted material in a dispute with Fox News Network LLC unanswered (TVEyes Inc. v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 18-321, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 7049).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Technology company Intel Corp. sued a former employee in California federal court on Nov. 27, alleging that the defendant stole certain confidential and proprietary information relating to the development of its new memory technology from the company and misappropriated the trade secrets after accepting employment from a competitor in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and his employment agreements with Intel (Intel Corp. v. Doyle Rivers, et al., No. 18-3061, E.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on Nov. 26 declined to compel the production of the terms of a confidential settlement between the plaintiff and co-defendant Facebook Inc. in a trade secrets misappropriation lawsuit, ruling that the other co-defendants are not entitled to an offset of lost profits and unjust enrichment damages (BladeRoom Group Limited, et al. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., No. 15-1370, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199738).