LAS VEGAS — Rimini Street Inc. on Aug. 16 sought an emergency stay of a Nevada federal judge’s order two days earlier that permanently enjoined the software support firm from preparing or distributing derivative works based upon Oracle USA Inc.’s copyrighted software and awarded Oracle $28.5 million in attorney fees (Oracle USA Inc. v. Rimini Street Inc., No. 10-106, D. Nev., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137311).
LOS ANGELES — A cryptocurrency investor sued AT&T Inc. in California federal court Aug. 15, faulting the company for lax security measures that allowed hackers to gain control of his phone, via a method known as SIM swap, ultimately resulting in the theft of almost $24 million in cryptocurrency (Michael Terpin v. AT&T Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-06975, C.D. Calif.).
CHICAGO — Because a blind Chicago man was not eligible to join a credit union for police officers, an Illinois federal judge on Aug. 7 found that he lacked standing to sue the credit union under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) over its purportedly inaccessible website, dismissing the lawsuit (Matthew Carello v. Aurora Policemen Credit Union, No. 1:17-cv-09346, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132845).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly found that it was entitled to an award of nontaxable costs in a software copyright infringement suit, Oracle USA Inc. tells the U.S. Supreme Court in an Aug. 1 brief opposing a software support firm’s petition for certiorari, citing the Copyright Act’s provision for a discretionary award of “all costs” to a prevailing party (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
ROANOKE, Va. — Claiming that it owns trade secret rights in the followers list of a Twitter account used by a former employee, the owner of a Virginia newspaper on Aug. 6 filed suit in Virginia federal court against that reporter for not turning over control of the account upon leaving the company, alleging state and federal claims for trade secret misappropriation and computer fraud (BH Media Group Inc. v. Andy Bitter, No. 7:18-cv-00388, W.D. Va.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Apple Inc. argues in an Aug. 10 merits brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that the plaintiffs in a putative class action over alleged anti-competitive pricing for iPhone apps lack standing under the Sherman Act because they are indirect purchasers, basing their claims on “pass-through” damages from the app developers (Apple Inc. v. Robert Pepper, et al., No. 17-204, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — Under controlling precedent, Facebook Inc. argues in an Aug. 7 appellee brief in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a plaintiff failed to establish that text messages notifying users of unauthorized account access attempts were made using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) and, therefore, did not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) (Noah Duguid v. Facebook Inc., No. 17-15320, 9th Cir.).
By Vivian Cullipher and Adib Masumian
NEW YORK — Appealing a trial court’s finding that Donald Trump’s blocking of users from his Twitter account violates their rights under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the president, in an Aug. 7 brief to the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, argues that blocking users from the president’s personal Twitter account constitutes an exercise of his free speech rights (Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, et al. v. Donald J. Trump, et al., No. 18-1691, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Oral arguments before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals were held Aug. 9 in a dispute between Facebook Inc. and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which upheld an examiner’s denial of a patent application by the social media giant on grounds of anticipation (In re: Facebook Inc., No. 17-2524, Fed. Cir.).
ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on July 31 reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a lawsuit accusing Dunkin’ Donuts LLC and two other entities of failing to make their website, as “a service that facilitates the use of” its shops, accessible to visually impaired customers and ruled that it wasn’t the appropriate stage to consider Dunkin’ Donuts’ argument that it is merely a franchisor (Dennis Haynes v. Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, et al., No. 18-10373, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21126).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Information sought by Buzzfeed from several governmental entities is relevant to its defense in an underlying defamation lawsuit over an article on purported Russian attempts to hack the Democratic National Committee (DNC) database, a District of Columbia federal judge ruled Aug. 3, also deeming the requested discovery to be not privileged or burdensome (Buzzfeed Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al., No. 1:17-mc-02429, D. D.C., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130480).
SEATTLE — Amazon.com Inc.’s use of a New Jersey artificial turf maker’s trademark in search engine keyword advertising did not violate the Lanham Act, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Aug. 6, finding that the online retailer made no misrepresentations about any products’ source or quality (Steven Lasoff v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 17-35173, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21720).
SEATTLE — In an Aug. 2 amended complaint, 19 states and the District of Columbia challenged the legality and constitutionality of a recent court settlement in which the U.S. Department of State agreed to permit a private defense firm to distribute 3-D printable firearm designs via the internet, alleging violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (Washington, et al. v. U.S. Department of State, et al., No. 2:18-cv-01115, W.D. Wash.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 2 ruled that a federal district court did not err in denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and motion for release of materials pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court precedent filed by a man convicted of computer fraud and trade secret misappropriation because such relief is not available until “a petitioner ‘already has fully served [his] sentence’” (United States of America v. David Nosal, No. 18-10089, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21476).
SAN FRANCISCO — Although denying panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 6 amended its June ruling in favor of a software provider to further clarify the pleading standards for a plaintiff asserting violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (Robert Stevens, et al. v. CoreLogic Inc., No. 16-56089, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21732.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 2 brief, the Federal Communications Commission asks the U.S. Supreme Court to deny seven petitions for certiorari appealing a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling upholding a 2015 FCC order reclassifying broadband internet service as a telecommunications service, arguing that a superseding FCC order that reversed the reclassifications mooted the petitions (Daniel Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 17-498, 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; U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — A Florida federal judge did not err in finding that use by a declaratory judgment defendant of the “Casas Bahia” trademark in commerce was sufficient to establish ownership rights, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 3 (Direct Niche LLC v. Via Varejo S/A, No. 17-13937, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21584).
SAN FRANCISCO — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 2 agreed with California and the United States that an Indian tribe’s online bingo operation violates the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) because such gaming is illegal in California, where the bingo customers were located (State of California, et al. v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel, et al., No. 17-55150, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 21446).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Aug. 1 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirmed the patentability of some claims of a patent directed to monitoring and adjusting software usage under software licenses but deemed 14 other claims of the same patent anticipated or obvious (Netflix Inc., et al. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., No. IPR2017-00948, PTAB).