PASADENA, Calif. — A divided Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Nov. 13 upheld a denial of class certification in a Sherman Act suit accusing Apple Inc. of conspiring with AT&T Mobility LLC to monopolize market for iPhone service, finding that the plaintiffs’ expert failed to “provide a workable method for classwide determination of the impact of the alleged antitrust violation” (Zack Ward, et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 18-16016, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33854).
SAN FRANCISCO — A putative class action filed Oct. 31 in California federal court alleges that Facebook Inc. has facilitated and encouraged financial services providers to discriminate in violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by specifically targeting their advertisements to exclude women and older people from receiving them (Neuhtah Opiotennione v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:19-cv-07185, N.D. Calif.).
DENVER — A 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Nov. 6 affirmed a verdict and judgment against a man who solicited hackers to partake in a cyberattack against an astronomy supplies website and forum, finding the verdict and $27,000 restitution award to be supported by evidence and testimony (United States v. David Chesley Goodyear, No. 18-6222, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 33179).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations by an internet-based subscription news and research service that Bloomberg L.P. misappropriated proprietary information under the common-law “hot news” doctrine were dismissed without prejudice on Nov. 12 by a federal judge in the District of Columbia (DBW Partners LLC d/b/a The Capitol Forum v. Bloomberg L.P., et al., No. 19-311, D. D.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195725).
DALLAS — The Federal Trade Commission on Nov. 5 filed a brief in Texas federal court opposing a motion by Match Group Inc. to dismiss the commission’s claims that the dating website operator engaged in deceptive and unfair practices to induce consumer subscriptions (Federal Trade Commission v. Match Group Inc., No. 3:19-cv-02281, N.D. Texas).
By Hiram Kuykendall
SAN FRANCISCO — A Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Nov. 8 denied without comment a petition by LinkedIn Corp. to rehear an appeal of a trial court ruling that established an injunction permitting an analytics firm to collect publicly available user data from LinkedIn’s professional network (hiQ Labs Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 17-16783, 9th Cir.).
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — In a Nov. 8 electronic order, a Massachusetts federal magistrate judge reported that a deaf civil rights group and Harvard University have successfully settled putative class claims over the purported inaccessibility of the university’s website to the hearing-impaired (National Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Harvard University, et al., No. 3:15-cv-30023, National Association of the Deaf, et al. v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, No. 3:15-cv-30024, D. Mass.).
LOS ANGELES — In a Nov. 6 status report, a plaintiff informed a California federal court that a luxury property at the heart of its lawsuit against online real estate listing provider Zillow Inc. over a hacked online listing recently sold for $94 million, resulting in a fixed damages amount for its negligence claim (924 Bel Air Road LLC v. Zillow Group Inc., et al., No. 2:19-cv-01368, C.D. Calif.).
FORT WORTH, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Nov. 7 denied a motion to dismiss allegations that a defendant violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), when it removed copyright management information (CMI), rejecting the defendant’s position that the claim cannot proceed because the technical drawings in dispute are unregistered (Diamondback Industries Inc. v. Repeat Precision, et al., No. 18-902, N.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193637).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 8 announced that it will take on a dispute between the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and a travel website over the significance of adding a top-level domain (TLD) such as “.com” to an otherwise generic, unregistrable trademark (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A former Google engineer asked a federal district court in a Nov. 6 motion to issue a bill of particulars requiring government prosecutors to “clarify the scope and specific contours” of alleged self-driving automobile technology trade secrets the engineer is alleged to have stolen and misappropriated in forming a competing company that was later purchased by Uber Technologies Inc. (United States v. Anthony Scott Levandowski, No. 19-cr-377, N.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Nov. 5 petition, Rimini Street Inc. seeks a second grant of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in a long-running software license copyright infringement dispute with Oracle USA Inc., this time asking the high court to find that an infringer’s mental state needs to be considered when deciding whether to grant injunctive relief related to an innocent infringer (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 19-589, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Calling a ruling by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals “profoundly wrong,” Facebook Inc., in an Oct. 17 petition for certiorari, asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether a prohibition of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) against making automated phone calls, or sending text messages, violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Facebook Inc. v. Noah Duguid, et al., No. 19-511, U.S. Sup.).
OAKLAND, Calif. — Two advertisers who brought fraud and unfair competition class claims against Facebook Inc. over inflated video advertising metrics saw their proposed settlement with the social network preliminarily approved Nov. 6 by a California federal judge, who deemed the $40 million settlement of the three-year old lawsuit to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” (LLE One LLC, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 4:16-cv-06232, N.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a redacted petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed Nov. 5 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Apple Inc. asserts that “nothing about communicating using different types of modulations was new” at the time the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued U.S. patent No. 8,457,228 (Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies LP, No. IPR2020-00037, PTAB).
SAN FRANCISCO — Three months after first announcing that they had reached a settlement in a lawsuit over AT&T Mobility LLC’s accused data-throttling practices, the Federal Trade Commission and AT&T on Nov. 5 jointly filed a proposed stipulated order detailing the settlement under which AT&T will pay $60 million to compensate affected consumers and will be subject to injunctive relief by which it must provide clear and conspicuous notice of any data restrictions to its customers (Federal Trade Commission v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 3:14-cv-04785, N.D. Calif.).
EL PASO, Texas — The children of a woman killed in a mass shooting at an El Paso Wal-Mart filed a lawsuit on Oct. 29 against the anonymous message board site 8chan, accusing it of inciting hatred against Hispanics. Also named in the suit are the alleged shooter and his parents and grandparents (William C. Englisbee, et al. v. Patrick Wood Crusius, et al., No. 2019DCV4202, Texas Dist., El Paso Co., 120th Jud. Dist.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — One month after a District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel issued a ruling mostly upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 order repealing net neutrality, a nonprofit intervenor on Oct. 31 filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the court to find the order’s transparency rule to be arbitrary and capricious due to “internal inconsistencies and faulty logic” (Mozilla Corp., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., No. 18-1051, D.C. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Oct. 31 reply brief supporting her petition for certiorari in a negligence lawsuit against the operator of an online firearms marketplace, the daughter of a shooting victim asks the U.S. Supreme Court for “a uniform construction of” the Communications Decency Act (CDA) as to “the degree of protection the [statute] affords website owners and operators for their own negligent and intentional acts” (Yasmeen Daniel v. Armslist LLC, et al., No. 19-153, U.S. Sup.).