SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations by two residential real estate photographers that the real estate software provider for a multiple listing service (MLS) violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing their copyright management information (CMI) were properly rejected on summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled June 20 (Robert Stevens, et al. v. CoreLogic Inc., No. 16-56089, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16620).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Existing case law requiring a retailer to have a physical presence in a state before sales tax can be collected “is unsound and incorrect,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 21, overturning two long-standing high court rulings that had prevented South Dakota from enforcing a new law levying sales tax on certain online retailers with no physical presence in the state (South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., et al., No. 17-494, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3835).
ROANOKE, Va. — A visually impaired man failed to allege an injury-in-fact to establish standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to sue a credit union for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a Virginia federal judge ruled June 11, dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Keith Carroll v. Roanoke Valley Community Credit Union, No. 7:17-cv-00469, W.D. Va., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98284).
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — A man accused of misappropriating and converting more than $11 billion in assets of a deceased bitcoin miner filed a motion to dismiss in Florida federal court June 15, asserting a lack of jurisdiction and claim preclusion due to Australian judgments in his favor (Ira Kleiman, et al. v. Craig Wright, No. 9:18-cv-80176, S.D. Fla.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 18 ruling, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Washington federal judge’s decision to award a single statutory damage award in each of five cases involving the same BitTorrent “swarm” upload of the film “London Has Fallen” (LHF Production Inc. v. Doe 1, et al., No. 17-35237, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16360).
INDIANAPOLIS — In light of a defendant’s showing of relevance and the plaintiffs’ failure to establish privilege, an Indiana federal magistrate judge on June 14 concluded that a Facebook instant message string between two named plaintiffs was not covered by a protective order in a putative class action over pension plan administrative fees, leading him to mostly grant a motion to compel (Mary Bell, et al. v. Pension Committee of ATH Holding Company LLC, et al., No. 1:15-cv-02062, S.D. Ind.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A federal judge in California on June 13 ruled that an architect and his firm have not shown that they have standing to bring claims for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in a trade secret misappropriation and RICO lawsuit by failing to provide sufficient evidence that they were victims of any predicate act (Eli Attia, et al. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 17-6037, N.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99400).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — At the federal government’s suggestion, the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 18 orders list granted certiorari to Apple Inc. to decide a question of when consumers are direct or indirect purchasers related to their standing to sue a manufacturer for monopolization under the Sherman Act in the context of prices for iPhone apps set by app developers (Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper, et al., No. 17-204, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 31 petition for certiorari, a software support firm argues that a prevailing party can be awarded only taxable, not nontaxable costs, under the Copyright, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a difference of opinions among the circuit courts of appeal on the issue (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al.., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nonprofit organizations The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge (PK) were among the interested parties that filed amicus curiae briefs with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on June 11 and 12 in support of Google LLC’s petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that a panel ruling over Google’s use of Java technology in its Android smartphone operating system ignored fair use case law and could have a detrimental impact on technological innovations (Oracle America Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 17-1118, -1202, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent covering data compression claims “known compression concepts,” Amazon.com Inc., Hulu LLC and Netflix Inc. assert in a June 4 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc., et al. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01187, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a June 6 response brief, a data analytics firm tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a recent California federal court ruling in favor of Ticketmaster LLC is not applicable to the present appeal regarding access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) (hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-16783, 9th Cir.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — One year after a YouTube user was denied certiorari on questions of fair use and good faith surrounding the takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a California federal magistrate judge announced in a June 6 minute entry that the parties in the 11-year old case had “reached in principle” a settlement of the remaining issues (Stephanie Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., et al., No. 4:07-cv-03783, N.D. Calif.).
By Vivian Cullipher
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on June 1 granted a petition by two iPhone users to appeal a trial court order denying class certification in a six-year-old suit alleging that Apple Inc. sought to monopolize the aftermarket for voice and data services via exclusive service contracts with AT&T Mobility (Zack Ward, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 18-80027, 9th Cir.).
MARSHALL, Texas — Efforts by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other defendants to bar an expert from testifying that they owe at least $1.5 billion in damages for patent infringement were unsuccessful on June 5, when a Texas federal magistrate judge denied their joint, sealed motion to exclude (Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al., No. 16-1314, E.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93876).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a final written decision issued June 6, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found nine challenged claims of a Koninklijke Philips N.V. patent nonobvious and not anticipated by prior art (Google Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., No. IPR2017-00437, PTAB).
LAS VEGAS — A November 2017 order that dismissed with prejudice allegations of copyright misuse, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and false advertising by Oracle International Corp. will not be reconsidered, a Nevada federal judge ruled June 5 (Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle International Corp., No. 14-1699, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94585).
SEATTLE — Washington Attorney General (AG) Robert W. Ferguson on June 4 filed complaints on behalf of the state against Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. in the King County Superior Court, asserting that both firms failed to comply with record-keeping and reporting requirements of Washington’s campaign finance and disclosure law, Rev. Code Wash. 42.17A, related to political advertisements that ran on the companies’ respective online platforms (Washington v. Facebook Inc., No. NA, and Washington v. Google Inc., No. NA, Wash. Super., King County).
MIAMI — Buzzfeed Inc. may proceed with its affirmative defense of the fair reporting privilege in defamation lawsuit over its online publication of an article on purported Russian attempts to hack the Democratic National Committee (DNC) database, a Florida federal judge ruled June 4, denying in part a motion for judgment on the pleadings by a plaintiff who says he was wrongly implicated in the article (Aleksej Gubarev, et al. v. Buzzfeed Inc., et al., No. 0:17-cv-60426, S.D. Fla.).