ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed Feb. 15, Apple Inc. asserts that various claims of a voiceover internet protocol (VoIP) patent are obvious under Section 103(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 103(a), one year after the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied without prejudice the software giant’s bid to cancel claims of the same patent (Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA Inc., Nos. IPR2018-00580 and IPR2018-00579, PTAB).
NEW YORK — Breitbart News Network, Time Inc. and other online publishers were dealt a blow Feb. 15 when a New York federal judge ruled that tweets embedded in news stories can form the basis of a copyright infringement claim (Justin Goldman v. Breitbart News Network Inc., et al., No. 17-3144, S.D. N.Y., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25215).
SAN FRANCISCO — In its third appeal to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a copyright dispute with several movie studios, video-filtering service provider VidAngel Inc. argues in a Feb. 12 brief that a trial court improperly dismissed its counterclaims under the Sherman Act and California’s unfair competition law (UCL), despite its ample pleadings of the studios’ collusive actions (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 17-56665, 9th Cir.).
RICHMOND, Va. — In a Feb. 1 ruling, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a Virginia federal judge’s determination that two internet service providers (ISPs) are not entitled to a safe-harbor defense to allegations of contributory copyright infringement, but vacated and reversed a jury’s $25 million statutory damage award upon finding that jurors were presented with erroneous instructions (BMG Rights Management [US] LLC, et al. v. Cox Communications Inc., et al., No. 16-1972, 17-1352 and 17-1353, 4th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2487).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The city of Providence, R.I., on Feb. 12 filed a consumer protection class action complaint against Intel Corp. in California federal court, charging the microprocessor chip manufacturer with unfair competition and warranty violations related to the recently discovered “Meltdown” and “Spectre” security vulnerabilities that can reportedly affect millions of computers and devices worldwide, resulting in the exposure of users’ sensitive information (Providence v. Intel Corp., No. 5:18-cv-00894, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A blind man who sued Domino’s Pizza LLC for purportedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with a website that is inaccessible to the visually impaired tells the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Feb. 9 reply brief that his complaint was improperly dismissed amid due process concerns despite the pizza chain’s ample notice of its website accessibility obligations (Guillermo Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. 17-55504, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patent owner whose invention was declared ineligible for patent protection under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101, challenges the findings in a case that was submitted to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on the briefs on Feb. 8 (Patrick Zuili v. Google Inc., Nos. 17-2161, -2258, -2267, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Affirming a trial court’s dismissal of two terror victim’s families’ Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) claims against Twitter Inc., a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 31 found that the plaintiffs failed to establish that their injuries were caused “by reason of” Twitter’s purported provision of resources to terrorists (Tamara Fields, et al. v. Twitter Inc., No. 16-17165, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2445).
By Hiram Kuykendall
SAN FRANCISCO — In a pair of Feb. 7 reply briefs, a man found guilty of federal computer fraud and trade secret misappropriation charges asks a California federal court to grant him a writ of coram nobis to reconsider his prison sentence, in light of subsequent trade secret theft carried out by his former employer, which was his purported victim (United States v. David Nosal, No. 3:08-cr-00237, N.D. Calif.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — Citing a recent Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, Google LLC in a Feb. 6 reply brief supporting its motion to again dismiss claims that it provided aid to the terrorists that carried out the 2015 Paris attacks asserts that the family of a victim failed to establish the necessary direct relationship to bring a claim under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 4:16-cv-03282, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — In a Feb. 5 putative class complaint in California court, a Colorado man claims that Google North America Inc. violates California’s unfair competition law (UCL), false advertising law (FAL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by billing its mobile service customers for data service obtained from other sources and providers (Gordon Beecher v. Google North America Inc., No. 5:18-cv-00753, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In the wake of at least 50 federal patent infringement lawsuits filed against its cloud-computing customers, Amazon.com Inc. on Feb. 5 sued the plaintiff in those suits in California federal court, seeking declarations of noninfringement and claim preclusion due to a previous judgment it obtained against the technology firm (Amazon.com Inc., et al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-00767, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Nine claims of a Blackberry Ltd. patent were anticipated by a patent application filed and published in 2006, Nokia of America Corp. tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a Feb. 6 petition for inter partes review (IPR) (Nokia of America Corporation v. Blackberry Ltd., No. IPR2018-00583, PTAB).
DALLAS — Three blind law students and a bar exam preparation services provider filed a consent decree in Texas federal court Jan. 22, memorializing changes that the defendant will enact to make its website equally accessible to visually impaired persons and to bring it into compliance with standards the plaintiffs say meet guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Claire Stanley, et al. v. Barbri Inc., et al., No. 3:16-cv-01113, N.D. Texas).
SAN FRANCISCO — Affirming dismissal of a putative Wiretap Act class action against Apple Inc., a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 29 held that certain misclassified and undelivered text messages from Apple iMessage users were not intercepted in transit and, thus, did not violate the statute (Adam Backhaut, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-17523, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 2207).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge on Jan. 26 approved an agreement and consent judgment, settling a decade-long copyright infringement lawsuit brought by a group of record labels and music publishers against the founder of now-defunct online music-sharing service MP3tunes LLC, assessing an agreed-upon $39 million judgment against the defendant and adjourning the case (Capitol Records LLC, et al. v. MP3tunes LLC, et al., No. 1:07-cv-09931, S.D. N.Y.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Qualcomm Inc. in a Jan.. 26 brief asks a California federal judge to affirm a $25,000-a-day discovery sanction that Apple Inc. called “unduly harsh” in a motion for relief, with Qualcomm arguing that the sanction amount is appropriate in light of Apple’s pattern of discovery noncompliance in the antitrust lawsuit brought by the Federal Trade Commission (Federal Trade Commission, et al. v. Qualcomm Inc., et al., No. 17-cv-00220, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — A California appellate panel on Jan. 29 “swipe[d] left” and reversed a trial court’s ruling for Tinder Inc., finding that the lower court erred when it ruled that the dating application company did not violate the Unruh Act or California’s unfair competition law (UCL) by charging older users more for its premium service than younger users (Allan Candelore v. Tinder, Inc., No. B270172, Calif. App., 2nd Dist., Div. 3, 2018 Cal. App. LEXIS 71).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Because a blind man failed to establish that he was a member of a defendant credit union, a Virginia federal judge on Jan. 26 ruled that he failed to claim a concrete and particularized injury to support the claim that the credit union’s website was inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (Keith Carroll v. Northwest Federal Credit Union, No. 1:17-cv-01205, E.D. Va.).