LOS ANGELES — Arguing that VidAngel Inc. waived any attorney-client privilege in a memorandum authored by its lawyer by referencing it as a source of its advice-of-counsel defense against willful copyright infringement, a group of plaintiff movie studios asked a California federal court on Feb. 14 to compel the online movie-filtering service to submit the memorandum and any other documents related to its defenses (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Three months after a California federal judge preliminarily approved an $8.3 million settlement with Lenovo (United States) Inc. over its use of intrusive adware, a consumer class on Feb. 14 moved for final approval of the agreement that would settle their privacy and computer fraud claims against the computer manufacturer (In Re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, No. 3:15-md-02624, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A putative class of property owners who complained of incidents of nuisance and trespass carried out by players of Pokémon GO filed a motion in California federal court Feb. 14, seeking preliminary approval of a settlement with game creator Niantic Inc., that establishes methods for removing private property as possible gaming sites and for reminding gamers to be courteous (In re Pokémon GO Nuisance Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-04300, N.D. Calif.).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Owners of certain iPhone and iPad models defended their consumer and trespass claims in a Feb. 14 brief in California federal court, arguing that Apple Inc. knowingly concealed design flaws that led to battery degradation and unexpected power-offs of their devices (In re: Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, No. 5:18-md-02827, N.D. Calif.).
DALLAS — A Dallas police officer who was injured in a 2016 shooting by a man who identified with a terrorist organization filed suit with his spouse Feb. 13 in Texas federal court against Twitter Inc., Google LLC and Facebook Inc., alleging that the internet firms provided support and resources to terrorist organizations via their online services in violation of the Antiterrorism Act (ATA) (Jesus Retana, et al. v. Twitter Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00359, N.D. Texas).
WILMINGTON, Del. — Tesla Inc.’s board of directors breached their fiduciary duty and violated federal securities laws by failing to properly oversee the actions and communications of CEO Elon Musk, an investor argues in a shareholder derivative complaint filed Feb. 11 in Delaware federal court (Melvyn Klein v. Elon Musk, et al., No. 19-0298, D. Del.).
MONTGOMERY, Ala.— An Alabama federal judge on Feb. 11 ruled that the internet-use reporting requirements of an Alabama sex offender statute “are facially overbroad in violation of the First Amendment,” granting in part a summary judgment motion by a group of convicted offenders to find the law unconstitutional (John Doe 1, et al. v. Steven T. Marshall, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00606, M.D. Ala., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21578).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 13 opening brief on remand, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a prior art reference the board previously failed to address renders claimed Finjan Inc. antivirus technology obvious (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., No. IPR2016-00151, PTAB).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Allegations that a Virginia author engaged in copyright misuse when submitting takedown notices to online vendors of e-books indicating that a three-part romance series infringes her copyright were dismissed Feb. 13 by an Oklahoma federal judge (Quill Ink Books Ltd. v. Rachelle Soto, et al., No. 19-920, W.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23095).
SAN DIEGO — Ruling on several disputes concerning class notice in a lawsuit accusing a juice maker of misleading consumers with its labels, a California federal judge on Feb. 5 ruled that class notice on the company’s website would be appropriate, but not on its social media pages (Crystal Hilsley, et al. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., et al., No. 17-2335, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18477).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Asserting seven separate grounds of unpatentability, Lyft Inc. on Feb. 12 petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented ride-sharing system (Lyft Inc. v. RideApp Inc., No. IPR2019-00671, PTAB).
HOUSTON — Adopting a magistrate’s recommendation, a Texas federal judge on Feb. 7 denied an online retailer’s motion to dismiss a Lanham Act lawsuit over its alleged sale of counterfeit goods for lack of jurisdiction, finding that good cause exists to conduct limited discovery as to whether Texas jurisdiction is proper (Danny Huynh v. Zurno Inc., No. 4:18-cv-01756, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20360).
NEW YORK — In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a case centering on a copyright fair use defense, Fox News Network LLC and an online media-monitoring service it sued for infringement settled their remanded lawsuit, as a New York federal judge on Jan. 22 approved a confidential settlement and stipulated permanent injunction (Fox News Network LLC v. TVEyes Inc., No. 1:13-cv-05315, S.D. N.Y.).
BEAUMONT, Texas — An arbitrator’s $1,000 contribution to an attorney’s campaign for a judicial position and their friendship status on Facebook did not justify vacating an award in a favor of a couple who accused a contractor of construction defects, a Texas appeals court panel ruled Feb. 7, finding that there was no evidence of partiality in favor of the attorney (John P. Sebastian, et al. v. Weston Lee Wilkerson, et al., No. 09-18-00223-CV, Texas App., 9th Dist., 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 880).
DENVER — A man who protests hydraulic fracturing operations sued the city of Lafayette, Colo., and its mayor in Colorado federal court on Jan. 17, contending that the defendants unconstitutionally blocked him from making comments critical of the mayor on social media with regard to the mayor’s actions that have advanced the fracking industry’s agenda in the city (Clifton Willmeng v. Lafayette, Colorado, et al., No. 19-150, D. Colo.).
SAN DIEGO — Although a California federal judge found that a dietary supplement maker sufficiently pleaded injury from purportedly false statements made by a competitor in an online review about its product, the plaintiff’s failure to establish the statements’ falsity ultimately led the judge to dismiss its Lanham Act and trade libel claims Feb. 5 (GOLO LLC v. Higher Health Network LLC, et al., No. 3:18-cv-02434, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18506).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a summary judgment order originally issued Jan. 29 and unsealed, with redactions, on Feb. 6, a California federal judge found that Oracle America Inc.’s allegations that Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) Co. committed copyright infringement by providing software patches and other technical support for Oracle’s “Solaris” software fail (Oracle America Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company, No. 16-1393, N.D. Calif.).
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Chanel Inc. prevailed against the operators of several dozen websites that were offering counterfeit Chanel goods on Feb. 5, when a Florida federal judge granted its motion for default judgment and awarded it damages, injunctive relief and control over the offending websites (Chanel Inc. v. Bestaaachanel.com, et al., No. 0:18-cv-63018, S.D. Fla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17846).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 5 order, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals announced that it will not revisit, as a panel or en banc, its October 2018 denial of a petition for mandamus by Google LLC of a finding that the tech giant must face allegations of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas (In re: Google LLC, No. 18-152, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO — The family members of a terror attack victim ask the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a Feb. 4 brief to find that their claims against Google LLC under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) are not barred by the Communications Decency Act (CDA) because they seek to hold Google liable for providing a service that aided terrorists, not for the contents of the terrorists’ YouTube videos (Reynaldo Gonzalez, et al. v. Google LLC, No. 18-16700, 9th Cir.).